GERMANY'S POINT OF VIEW 



4 



'b 



1/ 



5 



Germany's Point 
of View 



BY 

Edmund von Mach 

A.B., A.M., Ph.D. (Harvard) 
Author of 
What Germany Wanfs" 




CHICAGO 
A. C. McCLURG & CO. 

1915 



4= 



Copyright 

A. C. McClurg & Co. 

1915 



Published July, 1915 



#<^"* 



W. F. HALL PRINTING COMPANY, CHICAGO 

JUL 16 1915 
©GU401830 



To 

MY WIFE 

Wise Counsellor and Diligent Helper 

MARY WARE VON MACH 



Born in a New England Parsonage 

of Mayflower stock 

Lover of Truth 

and therefore convinced 

of the 

JUSTICE OF THE GERMAN CAUSE 

This Book is Dedicated 

in 

Love and Gratitude 



PREFACE 

THIS book contains a collection of articles, revised, 
which appeared in the Wednesday editions of 
the Boston Evening Transcript, October 14, 1914, to 
May 5, 1915, under the caption "The German 
Viewpoint," and which, therefore, present a certain 
record of seven months of the European War. The 
last two chapters were prepared for The Transcript, 
but were delivered as an address before the German 
University League in New York. 

The purpose of these articles was not to comment 
on the progress of the war, but to go to the root of 
things, and to explain, if possible, why those who had 
not lost faith in Germany differed from many of their 
fellow citizens in their interpretation of the relative 
merits of the causes of the several belligerents. These 
articles, therefore, contain a wealth of economic data, 
historical documents, and individual interpretations 
which it is hoped will show that in this war the right 
is on the side of Germany. 

It was at first suggested that the publication of these 
articles in book form demanded the obliteration of 
all cursory references to the incidents of the war. 
On second thought, however, this appeared not to be 
desirable, because the articles as they stand, reflect, to 
a certain extent, the historical sequence of the pres- 
entation of the several ideas to the public opinion of 
the countr}^ Those readers who wish to pursue a 
given subject irrespective of the time when this or 
that part of it was offered to the original readers of 
The Transcript, are enabled to do so by a table of 
contents which is arranged by subjects. 



Preface 

The author had one more object in mind in col- 
lecting these articles in book form. There has been 
much bitter feeling against the American press among 
the pro-Germans in this country, and among the Ger- 
mans in the Fatherland. Without, unfortunately, 
being able to affirm that Germany has received fair 
treatment, the author wishes to bear testimony to the 
fact that the spirit of fair play has nevertheless been 
more prevalent here than in some of the other 
neutral states. When the war is over the knowledge 
that articles like these appeared week after week, and 
at times when the passions were highest, in a distinctly 
.pro-Allies paper of such importance as the Boston 
Transcript will take some of the sting out of the 
charge of unfairness made against the American 
press. The defenders of the good name of Germany, 
had to contend against great odds, but they were not 
entirely denied the opportunity of pleading their case, 
as happened in other countries. 

In this connection it is only right to state that not 
once during the thirty weeks that the author was 
asked by the owner and managing editor of the 
Boston Transcript to contribute his weekly "View- 
points," was any request made or any pressure 
brought to bear upon him to lessen his freedom of 
expression. On the contrary, the author had an 
absolutely free hand, and his articles were printed 
as he had written them. This implies a degree of 
generosity which it would be difficult to duplicate 
outside of the United States of America. 

Edmund von Mach. 

Cambridge, Mass., May, IQ15. 



CHAPTER 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

IX 

X 

XI 

XII 

XIII 

XIV 

XV 

XVI 

XVII 

XVIII 

XIX 

XX 

XXI 

XXII 



CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Did England Want a Neutral Belgium? i 

The German Constitution 14 

Germany's Conduct of the War ... 28 

England's Conduct of the War ... 43 
Japan and Kiau-Chau— Germany and 

Belgium 5*^ 

Germany as a World Power— Alsace- 
Lorraine 73 

Alsace-Lorraine ^7 

English ■ and French Voices— German 

Victories 10^ 

English Militarism, Belgium, and Italy 112 

Is the English News of Belgium Reliable ? 126 

German Soldiers 140 

The Meaning of Tipperary . . . . . 149 

Germany Broke No Treaty 162 

The Straightforward Conduct of Ger- 
many ^75 

The English Web of Calumny .... 190 

"La Grande Pitie des Eglises de France" 203 

The French Yellow Book 216 

The French Yellow Book (Continued) 242 

The French Yellow Book (Concluded) 257 

German Scientists on the War ... 269 

The German Food Supply 280 

The German Food Supply (Concluded) 293 



Contents 



CHAPTER PAGE 

XXIII Naval War and International Law . . 303 

XXIV The Declaration of London 315 

XXV Bismarck 328 

XXVI Bulgaria 338 

XXVII The Exportation of Arms 351 

XXVIII The Rights and Duties of Neutrals . . 363 

XXIX How England and France Wage War . 378 

XXX Sir Edward Grey -390 

XXXI Sir Edward's Evidence 401 

XXXII Sir Edward's Evidence (Concluded) . 419 

Index 439 



GERMANY'S POINT OF VIEW 



GERMANY'S POINT OF VIEW 



CHAPTER I 

DID ENGLAND WANT A NEUTRAL BELGIUM? 

IT IS a great mistake to believe that the German 
nation is ready to condone a criminal action for 
the sole reason that it was committed by their own 
government. On the contrary, no people will be se- 
verer in their censure of the infringement of Belgian 
neutrality than the Germans themselves, if it is found 
that the facts in the case are those presented by the 
British statesmen and not those given currency in 
Germany. 

James Bryce recently introduced his general discus- 
sion of the subject with these words: 

Moreover, the facts, at least as we in England see and 
believe them, and as the documents seem to prove them 
to be, appear not to be known to the German people, 
and the motives of the chief actors are not yet fully 
ascertained. 

This very fair statement should make one willing, 
in the interest of truth, to listen to the facts as they 
appear to the German people. They are here given, 
not in a controversial spirit, but to complete the record, 
so to speak, of the case before the court of public 
opinion. 

Much uncertainty exists concerning the treaties on 
which Belgian neutrality rests, and even James Bryce 



2 Germany's Point of View 

apparently neglected to look them up, although he 
doubtless knows that in such cases one cannot always 
rely on one's memory. 

These are the facts : The division between Holland 
and Belgium, both of which countries had been parts 
of the old German empire, was established by the 
treaty of 183 1. In 1839 Great Britain, France, Aus- 
tria-Hungary, Prussia, and Russia signed a supple- 
mentary treaty guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium 
and accepting in toto the articles of the earlier treaty. 
In 1870 there was considerable uncertainty about the 
binding force of the treaty of 1839, some holding 
that the guarantee of Belgian neutrality forced the 
signatory Powers not only themselves to respect the 
neutrality but also to compel, by force of arms, all 
other nations to respect it; others — and among them 
Mr. Gladstone — declared in the British Parliament 
that a guarantee made under entirely different con- 
ditions was not enforceable. Since it was, however, 
desirable from every point of view that Belgian neu- 
trality should be respected during the Franco-Prussian 
War of 1870, Great Britain negotiated special treaties 
with Prussia and France, respectively, on August 9 
and II, 1870. The treaties are identical in wording, 
substituting in the second treaty, of course, France 
for Prussia wherever this name occurs. After the 
preamble the treaty reads : 

Article I. His Majesty the king of Prussia having de- 
clared that notwithstanding the hostilities in which the 
North German Confederation is engaged with France, it 
is his fixed determination to respect the neutrality of 
Belgium so long as the same shall be respected by France. 
Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Ireland, on her part declares that, if during 



Did England Want a Neutral Belgium? 3 

the said Hostilities the Armies of France should violate 
that Neutrality, she will be prepared to cooperate with 
his Prussian Majesty for the defence of the same in a 
manner as may be mutually agreed upon, employing for 
that purpose her Naval and Military forces to insure its 
observance, and to maintain, in conjunction with his Prus- 
sian Majesty, then and thereafter, the Independence and 
Neutrality of Belgium. 

It is clearly understood that Her Majesty of thg United 
Kingdom of Great Britain and Irelai;id does not engage 
herself by this treaty to take part in any of the general 
operations of the war now carried on between the North 
German Confederation and France, beyond the limits of 
Belgium and the Netherlands of 19th April, 1839. 

Article II. His Majesty the King of Prussia agrees on 
his part, in the event provided for in the foregoing article, 
to cooperate with Her Majesty the Queen of the United 
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland employing his 
naval and military forces for the purpose aforesaid, and- 
the case arising, to concert with her majesty the measures 
which shall be taken separately or in common, to secure 
the neutrality and independence of Belgium. 

Article III. This treaty shall be binding on the High 
Contracting Parties during the Continuance of the present 
war between the North German Confederation and France, 
and for twelve months after the Ratification of any 
Treaty of Peace concluded between those parties, and on 
the expiration of that time the Independence and Neu- 
trality of Belgium will, so far as the High Contracting 
Parties are respectively concerned, continue to rest as 
heretofore on Article i of the Quintuple Treaty of the 
19th of April, 1839. '^ 

If this treaty of 1870 is studied in the light of Mr. 
Gladstone's remarks in Parliament, the conclusion that 
the earlier treaty placed no enforceable obligations on 
Great Britain seems reasonable. For if it did, no 
valid reason for a new treaty appears, because a mere 
announcement on the part of Great Britain that it 
understood her guarantee of 1839 to be enforceable 
in 1870, would have been sufficient. And more, from 



Germany's Point of View 



the wording of Article I it may be possible to deduce 
that at that time neither France nor Prussia nor Great 
Britain saw in the treaty of 1839 a moral obligation 
of the contestants to respect Belgian neutrality. If 
they had done so, it is probable — some say certain — 
that the phrase "guaranteed by Prussia [France] in 
the treaty of 1839" would have been inserted after 
the phrase " his fixed determination to respect the neu- 
trality of Belgium." 

Mr. Lloyd George in an address to his Welsh com- 
patriots, delivered in October, 19 14, ignored these 
treaties of 1870, referring merely to a preliminary 
enquiry whether both France and Prussia intended to 
respect Belgian neutrality, and continued: 

That was in 1870. Mark what followed. Three or 
four days after that document (an address of thanks from 
Belgium) was received, the French army was wedged 
up against the Belgian frontier, every means shut out, 
a ring of flame from Prussian cannon. There was one 
way of escape. What was that? Violate the neutrality 
of Belgium. What did they do? The French on that 
occasion preferred ruin, humiliation, to the breaking of 
their bond. French emperor, French marshals, a hundred 
thousand gallant Frenchmen in arms, preferred to be car- 
ried captive to the strange land of their enemy rather 
than dishonor the name of their country. 

It was the last French army in the field. Had they 
violated Belgian neutrality the whole history of that war 
would have been changed. Yet when it was for the in- 
terest of France to break the treaty [of 1839, Lloyd George 
did not mention the one 1870] she did not do it. 

It is the interest of Prussia to break the treaty, and 
she has done it. 

Mr. Lloyd George is silent on the fact that Great 
Britain would have automatically taken up arms 
against France, if she had thus violated Belgian neu- 



Did England Want a Neutral Belgium f 5 

trality. The most charitable view of this omission 
is that he did not know of the existence of the treaties 
of 1870. In this case, however, since he is a member 
of the present British Government the authority of 
the utterances by this government is somewhat les- 
sened. A less charitable view, and one which one 
cannot blame the Germans for taking, is that he wil- 
fully suppressed the mention of these treaties ; for the 
question occurs at once to all who have read these 
treaties, was it not possible to negotiate similar trea- 
ties in 1914 and keep Great Britain out of the war? 
To this question the British Government will find it 
difficult to give an answer, for Germany asked Great 
Britain before entering Belgium whether she would 
formulate conditions under which she would remain 
neutral. Great Britain refused to answer in the affirm- 
ative. Why? This why has never been explained. 
Why was she unwilling to do in 19 14 what she did in 
the treaties of August 9 and 11, 1870?* 

If Great Britain had guaranteed the neutrality of 
Belgium by similar treaties as those of 1870, Germany 
would not have felt that her unprotected flank on the 
lower Rhine was endangered. One glance at the 
map shows that a successful French attack here would 
have threatened the German naval base and the great 
ports of Hamburg and Bremen. Why did Great 
Britain refuse to guarantee the neutrality of Belgium? 
There may be many reasons as yet unknown, but since 
she has offered none, is it altogether unreasonable 
for the Germans to believe what they are told by a 
Government which through more than twenty-five 
years has won their confidence, namely, that on July 
30, which .was several days before the declaration of 



Germany's Point of View 



war, Great Britain gave to France definite assurances 
of support against Germany in the expected war? 

This is contrary to the official documents issued by 
the British Government, and the Germans, knowing 
the difficulty of proving such assertions, were willing 
to wait for the evidence. In substantiation of their 
claim the German Government has now published, in 
the official Gazette of September 12, the following 
letter and explanation : 

On July 31, a letter was mailed in Berlin addressed to 
Madame Costermans, 107 Rue Froissard, Bruxelles, Bel- 
gique. On the same day military law was declared in 
Germany, whereupon all foreign mail was stopped and 
returned to the place of issue. After having been bulle- 
tined the legal number of days, the letter was sent to the 
Dead Letter Office and opened to ascertain the sender. 
In the outer envelope there was another, addressed to 
Son Excellence Monsieur Davignon, Ministre des Af- 
faires Etrangeres. This envelope also failed to contain 
a return address. It was opened and contained this letter 
signed by B. de I'Escaille, the Belgian minister, and dated : 
The Belgian legation, St. Petersburg, 795-402. The Po- 
litical Condition, July 30, 1914. The letter in transla- 
tion reads: 

Yesterday and the day before passed In anticipation 
of the events which must follow the Austria-Hungary 
declaration of war on Servia. The most contradictory 
news is being spread and it has been impossible to 
separate truth from fiction concerning the intentions of 
the Imperial (Russian) Government. Only one fact 
is incontestable, namely, that Germany has endeavored 
here, as well as in Vienna, to find a means by which 
to avoid a general conflict, but that she has met on 
the one hand the determination of the Vienna cabinet 
not to yield one iota, and on the other the suspicion 
of the Petersburg cabinet as regards the assurances of 
Vienna that it is contemplating only the punishment, 
and not the acquisition, of Servia. 

Mr. Sazonof has declared that it was impossible for 
Russia not to keep herself in readiness nor to mobilize, 



Did England Want a Neutral Belgium? 7 

but that these measures were not taken against Germany. 
This morning an official communique to the papers an- 
nounced that the " reservists in a certain number of gov- 
ernments had been called to the colors." He who knows 
the reticence of the official Russian communiques may 
well assert that the mobilization is general. 

The German ambassador declared this morning that 
he had reached the end of his endeavors as mediator, 
pursued incessantly since Saturday, and that he had 
practically no hope left. I have just been told that the 
British ambassador had expressed himself to the same 
effect. Latterly England proposed arbitration, but Mr. 
Sazanof replied : " We ourselves proposed this to Aus- 
tria, who declined." The suggestion of a conference was 
met by Germany with the suggestion of an agreement 
between the cabinets. One is tempted to ask if the 
whole world is not wanting war, trying only to postpone 
the declarations of war in order to gain time. 

At first England let it be known that she did not wish 
to be drawn into a conflict. Sir George Buchanan openly 
said this. Today, however, St. Petersburg is convinced 
— nay, more, they have the assurance that England will 
support France. [Aujourd'hui on est fermement con- 
vaincu a St. Petersburg, on en a meme I'assurance que 
I'Angleterre soutiendra la France.^ This assurance 
carries great weight, and has done not a little to give the 
upper hand to the war party. 

The Russian Government has given free rein to all 
pro-Servian and anti-Austrian manifestations these past 
days. In the cabinet meeting early yesterday morning 
differences of opinion still existed, and the announce- 
ment of the mobilization was postponed. Since then a 
change has taken place; the war party has gained the 
upper hand, and today at four o'clock in the morning the 
mobilization was publicly announced. 

The army believes itself strong and is full of enthu- 
siasm. It bases its hopes on the remarkable progress it 
has made since the Japanese' war. The navy is still so 
far from the realization of its programme of reconstruc- 
tion and reorganization that it really cannot be said to 
count. This was the reason which gave England's assur- 
ance of support so much weight. 

As I had the honor of telegraphing (T. 10) you today, 
every hope of a peaceful solution seems to have van- 



8 Germany's Point of View 

ished. This is the view of the diplomatic corps. For 
my telegram I chose the way via Stockholm by the Nor- 
disk cable as safer than the other. This despatch I am 
entrusting to a private courier, who will mail it in 
Germany. 

With the assurance of deepest respect, Mr. Secretary, 
I am, 

(Signed) B. de l'Escaille. 

The genuineness of this letter has apparently not 
been challenged by any of the Allies ; and the claim 
that Great Britain promised her support to France on 
July 30, that is, five days before the German infringe- 
ment of neutrality, seems to be borne out* by a com- 
munication in the Nation (New York) of August 2y 
(republished in the official German Gazette). It was 
sent by the London correspondent of the Nation, Mr. 
Towse, under date of August 11, and claims (i), that 
Lord Kitchener had visited Belgium secretly some 
time before to make arrangements for an English 
army in Belgium; (2), that the British troops in large 
numbers had reached Dover a week before the date 
of the letter, that is, on August 3 or 4, and, (3), that 
he had heard that one hundred thousand soldiers had 
reached Belgium on August 4. 

It is not claimed here that either the account of 
the Nation or the information contained in the Belgian 
diplomatic letter is true; and that the statements to 
the contrary, supposed to be contained in the official 
announcements of the British Government, are not 
true. But it is asserted that the Germans are not 
without excuse if they believe their government so 
long as Great Britain's reply is wanting to the ques- 

* See also discussion of British Blue Book, Nezv York 
Times, " Current History of the European War," Vol. I, 
No. 3, p. 438 ft'. 



Did England Want a Neutral Belgium? 9 

tions : Why was she wilHng to protect Belgian neu- 
trahty against French and Prussian infringement aUke 
in 1870, and why was she not wilUng to do so in 
1914? And further, why do her pubhc men misrep- 
resent the facts of 1870 as Lloyd George did in the 
speech quoted above? 

As regards the German belief that France had 
planned making her attack through Belgium, it is 
based on such a long sequence of events, and on so 
many public expressions of her statesmen and pub- 
licists from Thiers down, who said that *' the valley 
of the Meuse is the proper road open for France in 
an attack against North Germany," that anyone ac- 
quainted with French political writings will agree that 
this fear was not without some basis of probability.'^ 

Belgian hostility, however, is of a more recent day, 
for in the nineties most Belgians feared France. It 
was even said that a secret treaty existed between 
King Leopold 11 and the German Emperor by which 
Belgium was to open her fortresses to the German 
troops in the event of a. war with France. All this 
has been changed in recent years, partly no doubt by 
the rapid growth of German control over the com- 
merce of the country, partly possibly also by those 
traits of the German character which were formed 
when Germany was a cluster of insignificant inland 
states and which we have not yet entirely outgrown. 
But whatever was the cause of this hostility, every 
visitor to Belgium in recent years has felt it. It 
showed itself in an unusual way during the last inter- 

* For French plan of campaign, see North German Gazette, 
Sept. 30, 1914; and for documents found on the Secretary of 
the British Legation in Brussels, see New York Times, 
April 4, 1915. 



10 Germany's Point of View 

national exhibition in Brussels. The German com- 
missioner, who was well aware of this animosity, 
worked especially hard, and as a matter of fact was 
the only one who had his exhibition ready on the 
opening day of the exposition. With somewhat mixed 
feelings, therefore, he read the official . account next 
day in U Independence Beige, which said that the Ger- 
mans had opened their exhibit avec une precision 
brutale. There are not a few Germans who, in view 
of Mr. Gladstone's statements in Parliament and the 
special treaties of 1870, claim that the treaty of 1839 
contains no " enforceable obligations," and who wish 
that the Chancellor had said so. But since he did not 
say so, his attitude apparently was that Germany 
"would gladly have respected the stipulations of the 
treaty of 1839, although they were, according to 
Mr. Gladstone himself, of doubtful validity, and en- 
tered Belgium only in self-defence when the peril of 
the nation seemed to demand this step. 

None of these considerations, hov/ever, will carry 
much weight so long as the now famous "a scrap of 
paper " quotation seems to characterize the German 
attitude toward international treaties. Yet strange 
as it may seem, these words imputed to the Chancellor 
are as little known in Germany as the Chancellor's 
speech in the Reichstag discussing the Belgian affair is 
known here. No greater contrast is possible than 
exists between the flippancy which compares a treaty 
to *'a scrap of paper," and the deep seriousness and 
honest regret at having been forced, in self-defence, 
to violate a treaty of neutrality, which characterizes 
the Chancellor's speech. It was this speech which 
swept away the old class and party distinctions and 



Did England Want a Neutral Belgium? ii 

brought about a unanimous vote of the Reichstag. 
It is on the strength of this speech that Germany 
has risen like one man in support of the Govern- 
ment. Let no man think that Germany would, or 
ever could, follow "a scrap of paper" chancellor. 

The true history of this phrase may perhaps never 
be told. Sir Edward Goschen is quoted as having 
reported it from his interview with the Chancellor. 
According to this report the Chancellor was then 
deeply moved, almost unnerved at seeing his British 
friendly policy wrecked, and Germany menaced by 
three powerful and several minor foes. It is quite 
possible that he does not remember exactly what he 
said. Following a German custom, which in moments 
of excitement expresses itself in disconnected words, 
the Chancellor may have dropped a phrase which Sir 
Edward Goschen thought he was justified in trans- 
lating as he did. 

One other fact is also little known. The Chan- 
cellor had delivered his speech and received an ovation 
in the Reichstag such as even Bismarck had never 
received, several hours before his interview with the 
British ambassador. The British inquiry, in fact, 
whether Germany would respect Belgian neutrality, 
which led to the declaration of war on Germany, was 
presented to the German Government after the Chan- 
cellor had announced in the Reichstag that Germany 
had already been obliged to enter Belgium. To a 
German it appears incredible that the Chancellor with 
the enthusiastic approval of his fellowmen still ring- 
ing in his ears at the noble dignity of his address, 
should have meant to say to Sir Edward Goschen any- 
thing so flippant as the phrase "a scrap of paper" 



12 Germany's Point of View 

implies. And when the curtain has dropped on the 
present tragedy, and more people see the German 
Chancellor, von Bethmann-Hollweg, as the Germans 
see him, a man of deep and serious thought, it will 
appear to many that Great Britain made a mistake in 
publishing this private conversation. Together Sir 
Edward Goschen and von Bethmann-Hollweg had la- 
bored to improve the British-German relations. They 
had failed. The Chancellor saw, open before him, the 
near future: streams of blood flowing, young men 
dying, sorrow and want, hatred sown between two 
nations who should be friends, and both countries 
tottering on the brink of ruin. Would it not have 
been charitable to draw the veil of secrecy over the 
words which at that moment fell from his lips in the 
presence of none but the one man who had been his 
friend in a common labor? Is it, moreover, credible 
that the other was so unmoved by the Chancellor's 
grief and the rupture of the relations between Great 
Britain and Germany that he could be sure of the 
exact words used in this conversation? 

This explains why Germans would give little cre- 
dence to the "scrap of paper" quotation, even if they 
heard it. It is the noble dignity of the speech they 
remember, and the generous offers Germany made 
and Great Britain felt obliged to refuse. 

These offers (British Blue Book, No. 123) are little 
known in America, and yet their acceptance would 
have been of untold benefit to the United States and 
the whole world. Germany offered to respect Belgian 
neutrality and to guarantee the integrity of France and 
her colonies. If Sir Edward Grey had placed this 
offer before the British Cabinet, or had mentioned it 



Did England Want a Neutral Belgium f 13 

to the Prime Minister, or even had reported it to Par- 
liament, the European war might have been avoided. 
He did none of these things, but on his own responsi- 
bihty refused to consider the offer. For a full dis- 
cussion of this incident see Dr. F. C. Conybeare's 
letter in the Vital Issue of April 17, 19 15. 



CHAPTER II 

THE GERMAN CONSTITUTION 

THE October number of the National Geographic 
Magazine closes an illustrated article on Ger- 
many with a brief reference to the constitution of the 
country. At least this is the impression which the 
general reader receives, for he does not distinguish 
between Germany and Prussia. The electoral system, 
however, described in the magazine is that of Prus- 
sia, while Germany, like America, enjoys manhood 
suffrage. This mistake is often made, and occurred 
also a few years ago when the Manchu dynasty in 
China decided to yield to the reform party and to 
introduce a semi-constitutional system of government. 
They sent a commission to Europe to study the work- 
ings of the several constitutions, and after an exhaust- 
ive investigation recommended that the new Chinese 
constitution be modeled after that of Germany. What 
was meant, however, was not the constitution of the 
German Empire, but that of the kingdom of Prussia, 
and most especially the Prussian suffrage, with its 
division of the people into three numerically unequal 
classes, which nevertheless cast an equal number of 
votes. The joke was that a reform intended to ad- 
vance freedom should be based on a constitution which 
even in Germany is considered reactionary. 

There can be no doubt that the antiquated constitu- 
tion of Prussia has done the Germans much harm 

14 



The German Constitution 15 

in the world at large. It has been often quoted in 
connection with Germany, and people have received 
from it the idea that the Germans are suffering from 
the inability of enforcing their will because they are 
living under an illiberal constitution. Nothing is 
farther from the truth. The German constitution 
of 1871 is a liberal document, based on universal 
suffrage. 

It lacks the lucidity and beauty of diction and the 
simplicity of thought of the Constitution of the United 
States, for it is somewhat in the nature of a com- 
promise between opposing conceptions of statecraft. 
Withal it is solidly built on the foundation of every 
liberal government — universal suffrage. And for this 
the Germans are indebted to the insistence of 
Bismarck. 

The legislative power of Germany, which is a con- 
federation of twenty-odd states, is vested in the 
Reichstag and the Bundesrat, that is, the Council of 
the Confederation. Bills that have received a ma- 
jority of the votes cast in each house are to be pro- 
mulgated as law by the Emperor, who has no power 
of veto. 

The Reichstag is by all odds the most important 
factor of the Legislature of the confederation known 
as the German Empire. It is elected by universal 
manhood suffrage " in a general election and by direct 
secret ballot" (Article 20). In it the union of Ger- 
many has found its most complete expression, and, 
according to Article 2g>, every member is bound to re- 
gard himself as the representative of the people as a 
whole and not only of his immediate constituents. 
In pursuance of this conception every German is en- 



1 6 Germany's Point of View 

titled to vote at the parliamentary elections in any 
place in which he happens to reside. A citizen of 
Saxony, for instance, who is spending the season in 
Munich, Bavaria, may cast his vote there, and a 
Bavarian visiting in Berlin is entitled to cast his bal- 
lot in Berlin. No other provision probably could have 
brought home to the Germans the idea of national 
union so forcibly as this obliteration of narrowly 
defined State lines. 

In the elections the constitution and the special 
laws provided by Article 20 recognize only absolute 
majorities. If no candidate receives a majority of 
the votes cast in a district the voters proceed to an- 
other ballot, which is a continuation of the previous 
one and therefore necessitates no new election machin- 
ery. At this supplementary ballot only the two 
candidates who had previously received the largest 
number of votes are eligible. If there is a tie, the 
election is decided by lot, drawn by the chairman 
of the election commissioners, in the presence of the 
other members. 

Finally it is interesting to note that the candidate 
need not be a resident of the district in which he 
offers himself for election. If the majority of the 
voters anywhere believe that there is no specially 
qualified man in their district they can vote for any 
German, wherever he may reside, who satisfies their 
requirements. This provision has done much to raise 
the general tone of the Reichstag, and has enabled 
country districts to send strong representatives to 
Parliament. 

The powers of the Legislature are determined by 
Article 4 of the constitution. They are practically the 



The German Constitution ly 



same as those granted to Congress by Article i, Sec- 
tion 8 of the Constitution of the United States. The 
most important of these powers have to do with the 
laying of taxes, duties and the Hke, with the legisla- 
tion concerning their collection and the regulation of 
commerce (Congress can control interstate com- 
merce only) ; further, with the coinage and issue of 
loans on the credit of the country, and with the right 
of citizenship, naturalization and absolute freedom of 
action of the individual citizen beyond his obedience 
owed to existing laws. In several cases the powers of 
the Reichstag and the Bundesrat are broader than 
those of Congress, for they have charge not only of 
the post offices and post roads, but also of telegraph 
afifairs, railways, and canals, and, in addition, of the 
" Police Regulations as to Medical and Veterinary 
Matters " in all the states of the confederation. Instead 
"of merely having the power of Congress " to constitute 
tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court," the German 
Reichstag and Bundesrat are charged with passing 
" uniform legislation as to the whole domain of civil 
and criminal law, including legal procedure." They 
have acted according to this paragraph, and today 
Germany enjoys a uniformity of legal procedure in 
every one of its twenty-six states which is the surest 
pledge of justice to all the citizens. 

Congress has the power " to provide for calling forth 
the militia," but since this is distinctly an executive 
function, it has not been granted to the German Leg- 
islature. For the same reason probably the power to 
declare war, which the American Congress enjoys, is 
by the German constitution given to the President of 
the Confederation, who has " the title of German Em- 



1 8 Germany's Point of View 

peror" (Article 2). It is, however, stipulated that 
" for a declaration of war in the name of the Empire, 
the consent of the Federal Council shall be required, 
except in the case of an attack upon the territory of 
the Confederation or its coasts." (Article 2.) 

In the case of the present war, however, the German 
Emperor did not only ask for the consent of the Fed- 
eral Council (Bundesrat), but consulted with all the 
leaders of the Reichstag. This accounts for the una- 
nimity of the Reichstag in voting for the necessary 
appropriations. In practice, therefore, the principles 
of the American Constitution were followed, and 
this will probably always be the case; for, while the 
Emperor and the Bundesrat jointly may declare 
war, they cannot carry it on without the consent 
of the Reichstag, which holds the purse strings of 
the empire. 

When the new German empire was founded in 1871 
two somewhat contradictory ideas were guiding the 
people. The first was the desire for union and democ- 
racy, and this found its expression in the Reichstag 
and its very liberal constitution; the second was the 
fear lest Prussia, which was far more powerful than 
the other states, gain such strength that the smaller 
political entities might disappear. The American Con- 
stitution contains checks and balances lest one depart- 
ment encroach on the other. Some of the framers of 
the German constitution wished to avoid an encroach- 
ment by Prussia, while the latter did not wish to be 
obliterated as a power in the Confederation. The 
resulting compromise was made in the Bundesrat. 
This may be called the upper chamber. Its members 
are not elected by popular vote, but appointed by the 



The German Constitution 19 

several states. Each state, even the smallest, has at 
least one vote. There are sixty-one votes altogether 
(including three of Alsace-Lorraine), and of these 
Prussia, together with Hanover, the electorate of 
Hesse, Holstein, Nassau and Frankfort, which it con- 
trols, has seventeen votes. 

The appointments are, of course, made by the sev- 
eral governments, and reflect the advance in liberal 
ideas or the control of reactionary forces that happen 
to be at work in different parts of Germany. Three 
of the states of the German Confederation are repub- 
lics, the others are monarchies. There is, however, 
nothing in the German constitution that would prevent 
any of the states from changing its form of govern- 
ment to a republic, if it chose to do so. The people, 
however, appear to be generally satisfied with their 
present governments. In Mecklenburg, for instance, 
which is largely an agricultural state, the grand duke 
has for years been desirous of giving the people a 
more liberal constitution, but has been unable to 
overcome the resistance of the Diet as at present 
constituted. 

The Bundesrat itself, then, is an absolutely unique 
institution in that it is composed of representatives 
of a great variety of governments. Its functions are 
equally unique, and Bismarck once described them as 
follows : 



It. is not Baron von Friesen who is voting in the Bun- 
desrat, but the kingdom of Saxony. He votes as the 
kingdom instructs. Saxony's vote, therefore, represents 
the careful thought of all the forces that enter into the 
public life of Saxony. In this vote you have the diagonal, 
so to speak, of all the forces at work in Saxony and in- 
strumental in the formation of its government. It is the 



20 Germany's Point of View 

vote of the Crown modified by the strong influence of 
the representatives of the people before whom the Saxon 
Cabinet of ministers must defend the votes which they 
instruct their delegates to cast in the Bundesrat. 

The presidency of the Confederation of German 
States is intrusted to the king of Prussia, v^ho is given 
the title of German Emperor, but whose powers are 
less than the powers, for instance, of the President of 
the United States, for he has no veto over any laws 
passed by a majority of both legislative houses. 

While the President of the United States needs only 
the consent of the Senate to conclude treaties with 
foreign Powers, the German Emperor is dependent 
on the consent of both houses according to Article 2:^, 

So far as treaties with foreign countries refer to mat- 
ters which . . . are to be regulated by imperial legisla- 
tion. The consent of the Bundesrat shall be required for 
their conclusion, and the approval of the Reichstag shall 
be necessary to render them valid. 

The President of the United States is the com- 
mander-in-chief of the whole army and navy, but the 
Emperor is commander-in-chief of all the troops only 
in times of war. In peace, Bavaria, for instance, is 
entirely independent. The President draws a salary 
and has an official residence and perquisites. The 
Emperor, as the President of the Confederated States, 
receives no salary in whatever shape. He does, how- 
ever, receive a salary as king of Prussia from that 
state. 

In the appointment of officers the Emperor has 
greater powers than the President, because he is bound 
by the consent of the Bundesrat in comparatively few 
instances. 



The German Constitution 21 

His duties are practically the same as those of the 
President, for both are the executive officers of their 
respective countries. It will thus be seen that the 
Emperor is not a monarch so far as Germany is con- 
cerned, but merely the President of the Confederated 
German States. " German Emperor " is, as the consti- 
tution explicitly states, merely a title, but the nice 
distinction between the title " German Emperor " and 
the former "' Emperor of Germany," who was the mon- 
arch of the old empire, is often overlooked. If it 
had not been for the historical associations it is quite 
conceivable that the title ** German Emperor " would 
not have been bestowed in 1871 on the President of 
the Confederated German States. 

The new empire was not the result of a revolution 
or even a general dissatisfaction of the people with 
their forms of government. On the contrary, they 
had never been more contented. It was merely the 
result of their intense desire to forge the outward 
bond of union within which they would be able to 
live in peace and to achieve progress. The earlier 
attempts at founding an empire had failed, notably 
in 1848, because the leaders of the movement had 
tried to obliterate state lines, and had offered the 
crown of an emperor of Germany to the king of 
Prussia, at the expense of all his fellow German sover- 
eigns. The predecessor of Emperor William i had it 
in his power to become the real monarch of Germany, 
but he spurned it, because it would have meant the 
annihilation of all the other states, and the Germans 
as a whole were then as unwilling to see this happen 
as the Americans today would resent the attempt of 
doing away with all state governments, and throwing 



22 Germany's Point of View 

the combined powers of these governments into the 
hands of one man — the President. This unwilling- 
ness of Frederick William iv to be the gainer at the 
expense of all the other German kings and princes is 
a notable instance of unselfishness, characteristic of 
the HohenzoUern princes, although it is not often 
remembered. Equally unnoticed today are the sacri- 
fices which all the princes brought on the altar of 
national unity in 1871. Take William 1, king of Prus- 
sia, loved by his people and borne along by a wave of 
success. In his own state he was almost an absolute 
monarch, and while there was a Diet his word was 
very nearly law. All this he renounced, and con- 
sented, for the sake of national unity, not only to the 
extensive powers over his country, which passed from 
him to the Reichstag and Bundesrat, but also to uni- 
versal suffrage for the Reichstag itself. Bismarck 
once said that nobody had sacrificed so much for the 
union of Germany as his royal master. This is abso- 
lutely true, although all the other German princes fol- 
lowed his lead and proved, what people who do 
not know them often doubt, that the welfare of 
the Fatherland is dearer to them than personal 
power. 

Foreigners see only the arrogant side of monarchial 
institutions, and do not know the confidence which the 
Germans have in most of their princes. The writer's 
views may be somewhat influenced by American ideas, 
but it seems not incredible to him that a German prince 
should at some future time assist in the formation of a 
republic, if this form of government should appeal to 
-him and the people to be in their interest. Today 
most Germans do not think that it would be. They 



The German Constitution 23 

have studied, often very carefully, the workings of 
bona fide democracies in other countries, and, consid- 
ering their own peculiar conditions, do not believe 
that such a form of government would meet their 
needs so well as their present federation of states 
with its liberal constitution, and a Reichstag elected 
by universal suffrage. 

Perhaps it is the bitter lesson of centuries of humili- 
ation which has taught the Germans the lesson that 
they need a strong state, and has made them willing 
to subordinate many of their personal wishes to the 
needs of the state. But this voluntary acceptance of 
the seeming rigors of public order has quickened 
rather than blunted their ideals of individual freedom. 
The state, they agree, must be strong, but nowhere 
else do they suffer even the semblance of autocratic 
powers. In their universities and colleges, for in- 
stance, familiar to large numbers of Americans, there 
is a spirit of democracy and a system of self-govern- 
ment such as is found nowhere else. The idea of a 
small self -perpetuating company of men headed by a 
president governing the destinies of a university seems 
very strange to the Germans. The German faculties 
elect each year, from their own number, an executive 
officer, the rector, but the faculty itself retains full 
control of the affairs of the university. If a vacancy 
occurs, the faculty prepares a brief list of professors, 
one of whom is then chosen to fill the vacancy. 

It is the same in every sphere of life ; for the 
German ideals of personal liberty, on which even 
Tacitus of old remarked, have remained the lode star 
of the German people. Just as a young American 
gladly subordinates his will to that of the captain of 



24 Germany's Point of View 

his football team, without losing his sense of democ- 
racy, just so also the Germans have been willing to 
put up with the occasional inconveniences of a strong 
government without losing in the least their love of 
personal freedom. 

This is not the picture generally drawn of the Ger- 
mans, for although they have been variously described, 
they are generally pictured as too great admirers of 
authority. Some people have really misunderstood 
them ; others, however, have perhaps intentionally sent 
somewhat colored accounts to America. It should 
never be forgotten that even in times of peace nine- 
tenths, or even more, of the German news comes 
across the ocean via London. And in times of war, 
of course, when the German cables are cut, no news 
except an occasional item, via wireless to Sayville, 
reaches this country. Not everybody realizes what 
this means. Occasionally, however, even the British 
censor nods. The following passage is taken from a 
longer cable in which Sir Stanley Buckmaster, director 
of the official Press Bureau, announced, under date 
of October i6, that he would hereafter not add any- 
thing to the messages of American correspondents — 
he has apparently been in the habit of doing this — and 
then the cable ends with this magnanimous statement : 
"The press bureau is willing," said Sir Stanley, "to 
permit the readers of American newspapers to have 
the same basis for opinion as the readers of the Lon- 
don papers." Americans should ponder this statement. 

The following literal translation of the official Ger- 
man announcement of September lo and the English 
version which was cabled to America may illustrate 
what is done by Sir Stanley : 



The German Constitution 



25 



LITERAL TRANSLATION 

(September 10.) 

The army east of Paris 
pursuing the enemy to and 
across the Marne was at- 
tacked by superior numbers 
in the direction from Paris 
and between Meaux and 
Montmirail. 

It kept its ground in se- 
vere battles lasting two 
days, and even made some 
progress. When the ap- 
proach of new and numer- 
ous hostile troops was an- 
nounced, the wing was or- 
dered back. The enemy 
did not follow anywhere. 

As a booty of victory 
fifty guns and several thou- 
sand prisoners have been 
reported to date. 

[There follow a few par- 
agraphs concerning the 
other theatres of war 
which are correctly trans- 
lated.] 

(Signed) General Quarter- 
master von Stein. 

It will be seen that the English version completely 
changes the wording of the last sentence of the second 
paragraph, and thereby turns the booty mentioned in 
the third paragraph over to the Allies, when as a mat- 
ter of fact it was the Germans who captured the guns 
and the prisoners. The point here is not that the 
German and the British version of a battle do not 
agree, but that the British version claims to be a 
translation of the German official announcement. The 
discrepancies in the two translations are probably due 



ENGLISH VERSION 

(September 11.) 

General von Stein an- 
nounced that the German 
Army which had advanced 
across the Marne to the 
east of Paris was heavily 
attacked by the enemy be- 
tween Paris, Meaux and 
Montmirail. The fighting 
lasted two days. The Ger- 
man Army had checked the 
enemy and had even itself 
advanced, but stronger hos- 
tile columns came to the as- 
sistance of the Allies, and 
the enemy won the battle, 
compelling the German 
troops to retire. 

Fifty guns were captured 
by the Allies and some 
thousands of men made 
prisoners. 



26 Germany's Point of View 

to Sir Stanley's policy announced in the cable men- 
tioned above : " Official reports from Germany will 
be permitted to go through to America unchanged, 
unless they seem to reflect unfairly and untruthfully 
on the Allies other than English." 

All these official German reports are concise state- 
ments of facts of battles and maneuvers, and Sir Stan- 
ley apparently considers most references to German 
victories an unfair and untruthful reflection on the 
Allies. This accounts for the fact that such meager 
notices of the two tremendous victories over the Rus- 
sian troops in East Prussia have reached America, 
and that therefore the figures sent by wireless from 
Germany appeared incredible. 

If the English censor feels at liberty to alter official 
reports of facts, how much more likely is he to sup- 
press some news which might speak favorably of the 
German troops and to permit the manufacture of 
other items ! 

In times like these everybody feels more strongly 
the ties of sympathy which bind him to the homeland 
across the water, whether his ancestors left there 
generations ago or whether he came to America but 
recently, and nothing is more natural than that he 
should feel strongly with those who are today risking 
their all and giving their lives for their country. 
Bitterness, therefore, is apt to steal also into his heart, 
even if he has not to scan each new casualty list with 
troubled heart for the name of a relative or a friend, 
and lays it down with a word of prayer when these 
dear names are not yet mentioned there. 

This bitterness will be the stronger the less a man 
understands the point of view of those whose sym- 



The German Constitution 27 

pathies are with the other side. It is my purpose to 
present that point of view which has become less well 
known than the other, but no word will be penned 
with the thought of altering the sympathies of any- 
one, for the more deeply a man believes in the justice 
of a cause the more ready he is to respect the sanctity 
of the thoughts of others. 



CHAPTER III 

Germany's conduct of the war 

LORD SELBORNE, member of a former British 
' Government, has pubHcly made a suggestion 
which meets with the unconditional approval of all 
sympathizers of the German cause. He has written 
to the London Times, under date of September 15, 
as follows: 

Sir — At page 6 of your issue of today (September 12), 
I read in a letter to the son of a London vicar from an 
officer serving with the army in France [here follows 
the mention of some unspeakably harrowing atrocities]. 
Permit me to say that such statements as these cannot 
possibly be allowed to rest on anonymous authority. The 
civilized world has the right to demand that names and 
full particulars shall be given. 

Either these statements are untrue or they are true. If 
they are untrue, I am sure that you, sir, would most deeply 
regret having given publicity to them in any form, and 
would feel that our righteous cause was grievously in- 
jured by such a libel on the German army. 

But if they are true, then God and man will judge. 

Would it not be possible for trained lawyers or judges 
belonging to a neutral nation like the Netherlands or the 
United States to conduct a sworn inquiry into such cases 
as are already open to investigation ? There must be many 
such among the Belgian refugees in England and in the 
parts of Belgium not occupied by the German troops. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

Selborne. 

In an editorial of the same date the Times said that 
"a question was asked yesterday in Parliament about 

28 



Germany's Conduct of the War 29 

these charges, and the Prime Minister said in reply 
that the Secretary of State for War had received no 
official information about them." The Times also 
joined Lord Selborne in urging a judicial investiga- 
tion.* At present there can be no doubt that the 
charges of wholesale atrocities suffered by the Bel- 
gians are believed by very many people not only among 
the Allies, but also among the neutral peoples of the 
world, while similar charges against the Belgians 
have received currency in Germany. In this con- 
nection the following letter from the Prior of Aachen, 
published in the official German Gazette of October 
2, is interesting: 

The editors of the Cologne Gazette sent me this request 
on September 26. "Wishing to investigate individual 
cases of atrocities, we take the liberty of asking you for 
information. Several ladies employed in the main rail- 
way station of Cologne have been told, with the assurance 
of accuracy, that there was one big room in a hospital 
in Aachen filled with wounded soldiers, everyone of whom 
had been blinded in Belgium. Is your worship in a posi- 
tion to send accurate information on this score? It is, 
we suppose, possible that some soldiers may be in Aachen 
who have suffered such a fate, because Mr. Kiittner, privy 
counsellor in Breslau, mentions seven wretches thus mal- 
treated in his pamphlet called 'A photographic document 
of the bestiality of our enemies." 

My reply, which I desire to have published, is as fol- 
lows : " Every lover of truth and every good patriot will 
welcome the attempts of securing documentary evidence 
in all cases of cruelty charged to our enemies. Nobody, 
however, can any longer doubt that a psychic epidemic 
has developed these last days, and that it may have, and 

*The official British Commission has since reported that 
not a single authenticated case of an atrocity committed by 
the Germans has been discovered. See Nezv York World, 
Jan. 28, 1915. See also the Labor Leader, March 18, I9i5> and 
for a refutation of Professor Bedier's book, the Boston Post, 
April 25, 1915. 



30 Germany's Point of View 

already has had, very regrettable results. Those of us 
who are living in the immediate neighborhood of the great 
war events of the west are the best witnesses of the fact 
that entirely unfounded and most grewsome stories have 
gone from mouth to mouth — even among our soldiers. It 
has become common to generalize on the strength of in- 
dividual cases, and at times an uncouth fancy delights 
in the wildest vagaries of auto-suggestion. I, for instance, 
know of a wounded soldier here who told people he had 
been present at the execution of the monks of Louvain 
who had murdered in their cellars many German soldiers. 
When he was told point blank that the whole story of 
the monks of Louvain was a fib, he grew embarrassed 
and gave evasive replies. 

" I was, therefore, not at all astonished to hear your 
story of the ' room in Aachen ' in which the blinded sol- 
diers were said to be taken care of. Nothing of this kind 
astonishes me, however deeply I regret the nonchalance 
with which people tell and repeat stories which must 
excite not only all our people but also our soldiers. One 
man tells a story, because it was told to him as " abso- 
lutely true," and the next man repeats it as honestly 
vouched for. ... It is unpardonable for anybody in 
these excited times to spread rumors without having un- 
controvertible proofs of their accuracy in his possession. 
The Government has very properly threatened to prose- 
cute everybody who spreads a false report of an alarming 
nature. I wish such prosecutions would begin at once. 

"As to the rumor concerning which you wrote me, I 
have communicated with the proper officials. This is 
the report of the surgeon in charge of one of the hos- 
pitals. He is an oculist, and that is why I addressed 
myself to him among others. He writes : 

*' ' There is no room in any of the hospitals of Aachen 
filled with wounded soldiers who have been blinded. So 
far as I know there are no such cases in Aachen.' " 

(Signed) D. Kaufmann, Prior. 

It will be seen from this letter that the danger of 
believing unauthenticated stories of cruelties is not 
confined to any one country, and that the German 
Government has decided to take vigorous measures to 



Germany's Conduct of the War 31 

arrest the unpardonable repetition of alarming rumors. 
Peace will come again some time, and then the peoples 
of this world will have to live together as the mem- 
bers of one large family. There will be many unfor- 
tunate scores to settle; why shouldn't we, therefore, 
guard against forming additional and erroneous 
sources of animosity? 

There are a few apparently authenticated instances 
of atrocities suffered by the German troops. Some 
were mentioned by the chancellor in his interview to 
the Associated Press of September 2, and others have 
been published from time to time by the general staff, 
who have in each case given the full names and ranks 
of the officers making the reports. In addition there 
is a fairly long list of German residents of Belgium 
who disappeared in the first days of the war, and who 
are believed to have been murdered. 

In view of all this, Lord Selborne's investigation 
ought to be somewhat broadened, especially if it 
should be possible to persuade a committee of well- 
trained lawyers or judges from Holland and the United 
States to undertake this task in the interest of 
humanity. This committee should sift all obtainable 
evidence on these several points : 

1. Were German residents in Belgium murdered in 
the first days of the war? 

2. Are the accounts of Belgian and Russian atroci- 
ties, as officially published in Germany, based on unim- 
peachable evidence? 

3. Are the stories of atrocities attributed to the Ger- 
man soldiers and reported all over the world true? 

4. Were the reprisals which the German troops 



32 Germany's Point of View 

acknowledge warranted by the laws of warfare on land 
agreed upon at the second Hague Conference? 

5. If these reprisals were warranted, was their 
execution conducted with the maximum of forbear- 
ance possible under the conditions, or were the Ger- 
mans guilty of unnecessary harshness? 

The writer is well aware of the difficulties in the 
way of agreeing on the appointment of such a com- 
mission, but since Great Britain is somewhat com- 
mitted to it on principle owing to Lord Selborne's 
letter, and since Germany fully realizes the most 
unfortunate effect of the further circulation of anony- 
mous stories, and since America is eager to know the 
truth, there should be a will ; and where there is a will 
there is a way. 

On her part Germany has already begun a judicial 
investigation of the burning of the hundred and fifty 
houses of Louvain, for Justice Ivers, of Berlin, has 
been appointed to secure sworn evidence. However 
impartial Justice Ivers may wish to be, he cannot help 
appearing prejudiced in the eyes of the world. This 
appointment, nevertheless, was the best that could be 
done under the circumstances, and, being on the spot 
early, he may at least secure the names of witnesses 
that another altogether impartial commission may wish 
to hear. The first results of his investigation were 
published in the official Gazette of September 26, to 
the effect that 

on the evening of August 25 two rockets, first a red and 
then a green one, were fired from two houses on the Rue 
de la Station facing the railway station. As soon as 
the balls of fire from these rockets appeared above the 



Germany's Conduct of the War 33 

station, a hail of bullets from the upper windows of the 
houses on this street and partly also from the roofs, fell 
on the German troops. 

In a later number of the Gazette the story of the 
burning of the library is given. It seems that dwelling 
houses had been built close to it on either side, and 
that, unfortunately, no official of the university was 
present to warn the soldiers of the treasures hidden 
in the building, which nobody recognized as the library. 
Throughout the burned district houses are standing 
unharmed, still bearing the hastily scrawled' legend : 
" Spare this house ; it is inhabited by good people." 
Documents found in the office of the commandant 
prove, according to the official Gazette of Septem- 
ber 5, that the franc-tireur attack had been planned 
systematically. 

In this connection an interview with the Vice Rector 
of Louvain University, Monseignor Dr. Coenrads, is 
interesting : 

There is no doubt in my mind that the fire on the Ger- 
man soldiers was terrific. C'etait une fusillade hien 
nourrie. One can easily distinguish between the shots 
from German and Belgian guns. What I heard, at least 
for five minutes, were no German shots. But let me tell 
you the story so far as I myself lived through it. I was 
one of the hostages of the place. We changed places 
several times, and had to be at the City Hall twenty-four 
hours each, from three in the afternoon to the same hour 
on the next day. The first turn was that of the mayor 
and the rector of the university. Tuesday the lot 
picked me. 

At three o'clock I cheerfully took my place. Toward 
evening suddenly the shooting began of which I have 
already spoken. Those were no regular troops, for there 
were no Belgian soldiers left in town. We grew stiff with 
horror. A general told us that there was obviously a 
conspiracy at work, that he would have to take severe 



34 Germany's Point of View 

counter measures, and would have to levy a punitive con- 
tribution. 

The same evening we walked down the Rue de la Sta- 
tion to advise the people for God's sake to remain calm. 
Pastor Dillon spoke in Flemish to the people, and Senator 
Orban de Xivry, the former Belgian minister in Rou- 
mania, who had joined us, spoke to them in French. Then 
we returned to the City Hall, and retired for the night. 

Next morning I accompanied the officer downstairs, 
where they were drawing up a proclamation which we 
were to read to the people. It said, in effect : " We are 
hostages. If another shot is fired we shall be executed, 
the city will be punished, and a contribution of twenty 
million marks will be demanded." 

With this proclamation we went through the streets 
of the city, reading it at forty or fifty different places. 
At the corner of the Rue Frederic Lints we are reading 
it again, I do not know for the how maniest time, when — 
what do I hear? By God Almighty! the people are 
shooting again ! 

In spite of this renewed outbreak, however, no harm 
was done to Dr. Coenrads. 

Not all towns made the franc-tireur attacks on the 
Germans which characterized the inhabitants of Lou- 
vain, and Florenville even sent the following note of 
thanks to the commanding officer of the German 
troops: 

Florenville, September 12, 1914. 

Mr. Commandant — Before your departure we desire to 
express to you, in our own name and in that of the whole 
populace, our sincere thanks for the protection you have 
given us in these days which were so hard for us. 

The geniality of your character and your politeness, 
which was in evidence in your dealings with every one 
of us, have almost made us forget that we were living 
under foreign rule. 

We hope that your successor will follow in your foot- 
steps. 

On our part, Mr. Commandant, we assure you that no 
unfriendly act against your Government and your troops 
will be willfully committed. 



Germany's Conduct of the War 35 

The document is signed by the city clerk and the 
council, in the name of the burgomaster. The names 
are : Jacob, Simeon, Joannes, A. and Eug. Bradf er. 

A similar document of thanks from Braine-le-Comte 
was published in the Gazette of September 13. 

Very fortunately, these are not the only peaceful 
spots left in Belgium, which has had to suffer much. 
The very fact that an army of almost one million men 
passed through it in constant fights and forced 
marches, while another numerous army contested, in 
courageous battles, every inch of ground, tells its story, 
let alone the occasional reprisals. So many Americans 
have spent happy weeks in Belgium that they may be 
glad to hear Dr. Helffrich's official account in the 
Gazette of the present state of the little country : 

The devastations of the war, as we see them when 
we cross the German-Belgian frontier, are heart rending. 
A few places are completely destroyed, because the battles 
were raging there, or because murderous assaults were 
made on our soldiers after the places had been peacefully 
surrendered. The little town Battice, for instance, was 
burned because when it had surrendered and the troops 
had entered and the burgomaster had offered an address 
of welcome, he suddenly drew a pistol and shot the leader 
of the troops. This shot was the signal for a furious can- 
nonade on our troops from all the windows. A very few 
other small places near the frontier met with the same 
fate, while the large industrial city, Verviers, by contrast, 
is absolutely intact. Of all the huge factories there not 
one has been even damaged. 

In the immediate neighborhood of Liege the same pic- 
ture is seen. Wherever the battles raged fiercely, espe- 
cially near the forts, the houses are shot down or burned. 
The suburbs also are in part badly scarred, but only where 
our soldiers were fired on from doors and windows. Liege 
itself shows but few ruins. A few houses opposite the 
university are shot down, because our soldiers were shot 
at from there — it is said bv Russian students — after the 



3^ Germany's Point of View 

surrender of the city. The finest bridge of Liege has 
been dynamited, but not by us, no, by the Belgians. Two 
pontoon bridges, which we built soon after taking the town, 
show how foolish the destruction of the original bridge 
had been. Unfortunately, the same unnecessary destruc- 
tion of bridges occurs in several other places. The big 
factories have remained unharmed also here, notably the 
huge iron and machine works of Seraing. 

Between Liege and Tirlemont, where our troops 
advanced in a broad front, the country offers on the 
whole a peaceful picture, as if no hostile soldier had ever 
put foot here. The surroundings of Tirlemont to be sure, 
where the well-known battle was fought, are dotted with 
burned-out houses — but on the fields over which our cav- 
alry made its thundering way, the sheaves of grain have 
remained to this day. Nowhere one receives the impres- 
sion as if our troops had wrought needless destruction. 
Tirlemont itself, a city of 17,000 inhabitants, which sur- 
rendered peacefully, and where no excesses took place, 
is absolutely unharmed. 

Shortly before Louvain the horrors begin. There we 
enter the country where "the franc-tireurs raged most 
furiously and drove our soldiers to take severe counter 
measures. Much has been said about Louvain itself; it 
is, therefore, sufficient to state that only that part of the 
town was burned where the most murderous assaults and 
continued street fights occurred. When the fire threat- 
ned to spread, our soldiers fought it valiantly and saved 
much. 

The country betwen Louvain and Brussels, where the 
magnificent royal residence, Tervueren, and the Congo 
Museum are situated, offers an idyllic picture of peace. 
No house, no tree, no shrub has been touched. Our troops 
have passed here and have left no trace, not even such 
as are to be expected after a peaceful maneuver. 

Brussels surrendered peacefully, and to date (Septem- 
ber 20) no revolt against the army of occupation has 
taken place there. In consequence no harm has come to 
anyone. Private property has been scrupulously respected ; 
and all requisitions and individual purchases by the soldiers 
are paid for in cash. 

On the road from Brussels to Namur the aspect of the 
country is again thoroughly peaceful. In Woevre, to be 
sure, a few houses near the market place have been 



Germany's Conduct of the War 2>7 

levelled, because also from them treacherous attack had 
been made on our soldiers. In the fields the farmers are 
at work finishing gathering the harvest. The cattle are 
placidly grazing on the endless green meadows. 

The surroundings of Namur offer the same picture we 
saw between the forts of Liege. The villages between the 
forts have been largely destroyed, and this was done, as 
one can see from the course taken by the cannon balls, 
largely by the Belgian troops themselves shooting from 
the forts. The fields for some distance are trampled 
down or torn up by bullets. . . . Namur itself has suf- 
fered little, except that here as in so many places a few 
houses near the market place are destroyed as having 
been the starting point of sudden and vicious franc-tireur 
attacks. 

Between Namur and Charleroi some villages have suf- 
fered a good deal, for here the Belgians and French de- 
fended themselves against the German advance. The great 
industrial valley of Charleroi is practically intact. 

From Charleroi-Sambre onward there are but few traces 
of the war. In the immediate neighborhood of Maubeuge, 
however, within the range of the big guns there are more 
ruins to be seen. But the large towns of this region have 
remained practically intact. 

In the valley of the Meuse, Dinant is completely de- 
stroyed. The cause was that after the town had been 
peacefully surrendered, and our troops had been there 
several days, they were suddenly, most treacherously, at- 
tacked from everywhere. Further down the Meuse the 
many bridges dynamited by the French and Belgians are 
the only evidences of war. Between Namur and Liege 
only the city of Ardenne has suffered. Our troops had 
been here several days. As they were leaving and the 
last columns were passing the bridge over the Meuse they 
were most murderouslv fired at from the houses on either 
side of the river. The whole division faced about and a 
fierce fight ensued in the streets, during which many 
houses were ruined. 

Most of the other cities and towns in the thickly popu- 
lated valley of the Meuse give no evidence of war. Even 
Huy, a fortified place, which offered some resistance, is 
completely preserved. The large road from Liege across 
the Ardennes to Arlon offers the same picture but for 
the devastation wrought by the Belgians themselves, who 



38 Germany's Point of View 

cut very many of the beautiful old trees and placed them 
across the road in their attempt at retarding the Ger- 
man advance. 

The whole impression is that our troops have ruined 
nothing except where the stern necessity of fighting re- 
quired it, or where the conduct of the inhabitants forced 
stern measures upon them. In many places it is evident 
that our troops distinctly tried to restrict the damage to 
as narrow a field as possible, and saved what could be 
saved. 

The result of this behavior is that the productive powers 
of the country have suffered not nearly so severely as 
one might have expected. A ruined factory is an excep- 
tion. There are no burnt fields. Where the battles have 
been raging, sheaves can still be seen. The hedges which 
separate the several fields have been only cut where it 
was absolutely necessary. Cattle, pigs and horses are 
largely preserved, for they were neither scattered nor 
killed by our troops. 

The factories it is true stand idle today, with few 
exceptions, while the workingmen with their wives and 
children are sitting in front of their houses, resignedly 
folding their hands in their laps. 

One of the chief tasks of the newly appointed governor 
general will be to infuse life again in the industrial activ- 
ities of the country. In this he will be assisted by the 
discipline of our troops, who were tempted neither by the 
exultation of victory nor by any thirst for vengeance to 
destroy for the love of destruction, and who showed great 
moderation even in their defense against most treacherous 
attacks. 

Although this picture reveals less gloom than most 
Americans have been led to expect, it is exceedingly 
sad. The Emperor has said his heart was bleeding for 
Louvain, and he has been caricatured as an arch- 
hypocrite. For this reason, perhaps, fewer sympa- 
thizers of the German cause have publicly expressed 
their great sorrow at the fate of Belgium than would 
have liked to do so. They are exceedingly sorry for 
the innocent sufferers, while they have no sympathy 



Germany's Conduct of the War 39 

with the treacherous and brutal attacks on the German 
soldiers ; but knowing the Germans well, as outsiders 
cannot know them, they are confident that an impartial 
commission will be able to prove to the world that the 
Germans, as Dr. Helffrich states, really showed great 
moderation. This will, to some extent, lessen the Ger- 
man grief at the suffering of her neighbor. It will, 
however, quicken the world's resentment at the unwise 
action of the Belgian ministry who refused the request 
of their only Socialist member, that the Government 
should warn the people, in a proclamation, against 
murder and treachery and franc-tireur attacks. 

If it should be proved, as every German prays it 
may be proved, that the Germans as such are not the 
beasts they have been portrayed to be in their dealings 
with Belgium, then the question arises again: Who 
was to blame for Germany's invasion into Belgium? 
More and more evidence is becoming available, and 
soon it will be possible to place beside Sir Edward 
Gray's well arranged White Paper such an array of 
facts that Germany will appear in a better light. 
Already it has become apparent that the English White 
Paper does not contain all the important papers in the 
case. Facts alone, however, leave the heart empty and 
can really convince no one. The judgment of those, 
however, in whom we have confidence often carries 
great weight ! Houston Chamberlain, the great author, 
son of an English admiral, and graduate of a French 
college, is such a man in the eyes of many people. His 
estimate of the German people and of the Emperor is, 
therefore, pertinent. He says : 

I have had intercourse largely with Germans for forty- 
five years, and have lived in German lands these past 



40 Germany's Point of View 

thirty years. My love of the German way of thinking, 
of German science, and German art, has quickened my 
vision, but has not made me bHnd. My judgment has 
remained objective, and I have never become reconciled 
to many things which did not suit me when I first came 
to Germany. Since I was intimately connected with 
France from childhood, and bound to England with ties 
of blood, I was saved a blind partisanship. It is true 
that I have lived a retired life, refusing to acquire my 
knowledge of the people and their country by going about 
gaping at them. One sees things clearer at a distance 
than close at hand, and our ears are more receptive when 
it is still about us than when we are in the midst of a 
great hubbub. This is my testimony: During the past 
forty-three years not one man has lived in Germany who 
has wished war, not one ! Whoever says the opposite, 
lies — knowingly or unintentionally. 

I was fortunate in making the intimate acquaintance 
of German people in all parts of the country and of all 
walks of life, from the Emperor to the sturdy working- 
men with whom I had to do, day in and day out. I have 
known intimately teachers, scholars, merchants, bankers, 
officers, diplomats, engineers, poets, journalists, officials, 
and artists, but I have never found one eager for war, 
or, more correctly, anxious to have war. In England, on 
the other hand, where I visited last in 1907-8, I met 
everywhere a truly frightful and blind hatred of Ger- 
many, and the impatient anticipation of a war of annihila- 
tion. The absence of any animosity against other people 
is a remarkable characteristic of the Germans — and of 
none but the Germans. They rather err in the direction 
of too greatly admiring the virtues of other people. Every 
German, moreover, knows that the geographical position 
of his country is such that in a war he stands to lose 
everything and to gain nothing. How could a people 
whose industry, commerce, and science are flourishing 
more wonderfully every year — as has been the case with 
the Germans these forty-three years — conspire to bring 
about a war which could destroy all three? 

I am transgressing the space allotted me, and in conse- 
quence shall pass many things and confine myself today to 
this one point: Emperor William. He alone could have 
exerted an individual influence. I have not often met the 
Emperor, but always under most favorable circumstances, 



Germany's Conduct of the War 41 

when there was no ceremony, and we could exchange 
opinions within the earshot of none. I have never re- 
peated any of the monarch's words, not because he con- 
fided his secrets to me, but because we common people 
cannot foresee the possible effect of a word on a man in 
the Emperor's exposed position. I shall not deviate from 
my rule even today. I am, however, surely committing 
no indiscretion, when I say that two traits in this powerful 
personality have appeared to me to be notable and to be 
the dominant forces of his whole feeling, thinking, and 
doing : his deep, unswerving sense of responsibility toward 
God, and — closely connected, even demanded by it — his 
energetic, masterful, and, although it may sound para- 
doxical, impetuous will to preserve the peace of Germany. 
Germany's strength, which owes much to him, should not 
occasion war, but — on the contrary — force peace on those 
who wished Germany ill. His actions all prove this; for 
whenever the situation grew almost unbearable for Ger- 
many during the past ten years — and England saw to it 
that it happened often — he, the Emperor, was the man 
who forced the continuation of peace. This does not 
mean that there was a war party in Germany, for that is a 
lie of the Times, but there were responsible statesmen and 
soldiers who truly said: If England and her associates 
wish to have war, then let us have it rather now than 
later. The Emperor, however, could not argue thus before 
his God, and pushed his sword back into its scabbard. 
No wish — I am convinced in my soul — was stronger 
with William 11 than this one, that on his deathbed he 
could say to himself: I have been able to keep an un- 
broken peace for my country; history will know me as 
the " Emperor of Peace." 

If God should give victory to the German- Austrian 
arms, complete and all pervading victory, as we all 
pray he may, even those of us who are not German, 
provided we care more for the culture of civilized 
humanity than for national vanity — then, and only 
then, Europe will enjoy a hundred years of peace, and 
the wish of the great and good prince, who has been 
so shamefully betrayed by his fellow-princes, will yet 



42 Germany's Point of View 

be fulfilled, more gloriously even, and in a manner 
which will exonerate Germany in the face of many 
slanderous falsehoods. And he will be called the 
" Emperor of Peace " even more appropriately, for 
with the help of God he will have achieved this state 
of peace as his very own handiwork. 



CHAPTER IV 

England's conduct of the war 

AN article in the London Times (November i, 
1914) said: "These Germans of the past were 
always spoken of as the good Germans ; and the world 
admired their innocence and imposed upon it." The 
main reason why Germany's neighbors have latterly 
found her inconvenient is that Germany can no longer 
be imposed upon. England's offer a few years ago to 
limit naval armaments was a sample of the kind of 
proposal Germany used to take at its face value. She 
now has learned to investigate and to look a gift horse 
in the mouth, even if it comes from England. This is 
what she found : 

While England was proposing to Germany a " naval 
holiday," she was at the same time negotiating with 
Russia for a closer connection of her own navy with 
that of Russia, and undoubtedly assisted Russia in 
placing her enormous war and navy loans in France. 
Several super-dreadnoughts laid down in 191 1 are now 
being rushed toward completion in Russia. Since 
England for some years had been contemplating, as 
Germany feared, a future war in which she would join 
France and Russia against Germany, it could be imma- 
terial to her, so Germany reasoned, where some of the 
new ships were built, so long as Germany did not build 
any. The old "good Germans" of whom the Times 
speaks might have been deceived; the wicked people 

43 



44 Germany's Point of View 

now living on the other side of the Channel looked into 
the matter with that precision which makes them trou- 
blesome to their English cousins, and said, very 
politely : " No, thank you ! '* 

Before the world, however, England had scored 
again. She was seen to be in favor of smaller arma- 
ments, while Germany was not. So long as she kept 
her alliances secret, it was not possible to prove her 
agreement with Russia. Through the latter's careless- 
ness, however, the substance of this agreement in force 
between England and Russia has at last been pub- 
lished. It appeared in a Russian newspaper, the 
Nowoe Zvene, on July ii, 1914, in an article signed 
by M. Brgancaninow, who is a near relative of M. de 
Giers, the Russian ambassador in Constantinople. The 
article, re-translated from the official German Gazette 
of October 11, reads in part as follows: 

With a keen sense of pleasure we are enabled to bring 
a news which possesses so great an international impor- 
tance that no comments are needed. We have been told 
on unimpeachable authority that the English-Russian navy 
and military convention has been signed by the authorized 
English official and Count Benckendorff. Contre Admiral 
Bitty carried the text and submitted it. This is why he 
received the great honor of being chosen to accompany 
the sovereign in person, when a solemn church service 
was held in Cherbourg in memory of the murdered Arch- 
duke Franz Ferdinand. We are told that the convention 
is not only defensive, but actually contemplates the land- 
ing of English troops in Holland. By the stipulation of 
this convention the Russian-Baltic fleet is placed, in case 
of war, under the command of the admiral of the English 
fleet whose station will be, according to present plans, 
Norway. The purpose of this is that this fleet, thanks to 
the friendly neutrality of Denmark, may appear in the 
Baltic waters immediately after, or more correctly, imme- 
diately before the opening of hostilities, and protect to- 
gether with the Russian fleet our shores, which as yet 



England's Conduct of the War 45 

are absolutely defenseless. We have not often been in 
the position of congratulating the Russian Government 
on a success. But now we are happy at being able to 
do so. The great and primary credit belongs to our 
ambassador, Cotmt Benckendorff, whose authority and 
popularity in England as well as in Russia has scored this 
tremendous success for the entente. Now at last, sup- 
ported by the English fleet and our army, which is today 
absolutely ready, we can demand that our policy of de- 
pendence on Berlin cease, this policy which is contrary 
not only to our dignity but also to our international 
importance. 

Unless Sir Edward Grey issues a categorical denial 
of the truth of this publication, or himself publishes the 
full text of the English-Russian navy and military 
convention here referred to — neither of which he has 
apparently done as yet, for his explanations in Parlia- 
ment were unsatisfactory to the papers even of his 
own party — Germany would seem justified in believ- 
ing that the English-Russian negotiations which were 
said to be in progress when Mr. Churchill offered a 
'* naval holiday" to Germany, have borne fruit in the 
definite treaty signed by both Powers in June or early 
July, 1914. One may well ask whether it was not the 
hold secured on England by this treaty which made 
Russia decide on war as early as July 25 of that year, 
unless by diplomatic threats she could keep Austria 
from reestablishing her prestige. This is proved by 
the despatch to Sir Edward Grey of July 25 (English 
Blue Book No 17), in which it is stated that "Russia 
could not allow" — notice the word — "Austria to 
crush Servia and become the predominant power in 
the Balkans, and if she feels secure of the support of 
France she will face all the risks of war." 

Am.ericans who are friendly to the Allies may reason 



46 Germany's Point of View 

that the substance of the English-Russian treaty here 
quoted from the Russian paper carries its own proof 
of the non-existence of such a treaty, for since Eng- 
land, as they believe, has entered the war against Ger- 
many because Germany had violated the neutrality of 
Belgium, it is not likely that England herself only a 
few weeks earlier should have signed a convention 
which contemplated the violation of the neutrality of 
Holland and Norway, and the connivance in Den- 
mark's violation of her own neutrality. The reply to 
those who reason thus is twofold: First, won't you 
please join us in demanding either the publication of 
the full text of the English-Russian agreement referred 
to, or the official denial of the existence of any treaty or 
agreement? Secondly, won't you please explain why 
Great Britain alone of all the great Powers refused to 
ratify the Hague Convention of 1907, establishing the 
rights and duties of neutral Powers in case of war on 
land, containing the following articles: "The terri- 
tory of neutral Powers is inviolable," and "bellig- 
erents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of 
either munitions of war or supplies across the terri- 
tory of a neutral Power;" since Great Britain did 
not ratify these sections she was not bound by them. 
There was then in her case no reason why she should 
not do just what the Russian publication of the treaty 
asserts, namely, agree under certain conditions to land 
her troops in Holland. But if she should infringe the 
neutrality of Holland without breaking a law, because 
she had not ratified it, nobody can see a valid excuse 
for her going to war with Germany because the latter 
had broken this law. 

The writer has discussed this aspect of the case in 



England's Conduct of the War 47 

his reply to ex-Attorney General Beck's article in the 
New York Times of Sunday, November i, at such 
length that it is not necessary to repeat here the argu- 
ments and references. Advocates of Germany have 
asserted that Germany had asked Great Britain before 
entering Belgium whether she would guarantee the 
neutrality of Belgium throughout the present war. 
There is at present no official authority for the literal 
truth of this statement. The argument, however, re- 
mains unaffected, for from Sir Edward Grey's own 
White Paper it appears that he did not offer thus to 
guarantee Belgian neutrality. He was officially in- 
formed (Number 157 of the British Blue Book) 
that Germany had *' absolutely unimpeachable informa- 
tion " that France was planning an attack on Germany 
through Belgium. That was before any fighting had 
taken place, and Sir Edward Grey could still have said 
that Great Britain stood ready to enforce Belgian neu- 
trality impartially by concluding treaties with France 
and Germany similar to those of 1870. He did not do 
this, nor could he have done this, for it might — and 
Germany says it would — have brought Great Britajn 
into conflict with France. This, however, would have 
laid Great Britain open to the charge of treachery 
against one with whose plans of war she had become 
acquainted through negotiations lasting through years, 
as can be seen from Sir Edward Grey's letter to the 
French ambassador of November 22, 1912 (British 
Blue Book, 105, Annex I). 

It may not be superfluous to reassert here that no 
doubt whatsoever exists concerning the sincerity of 
the vast majority of British subjects who believe that 
they are at war with Germany because the latter 



48 Germany's Point of View 

infringed Belgian neutrality. Nor should the sincerity 
of the British ministry be impugned, who believed that 
the safety of the empire forced them to espouse the 
cause of Russia and France. It is, however, confi- 
dently asserted that the German troops marching 
through Belgium were not the cause of Great Britain's 
entry into the war, but largely only an excuse. In 
reality Germany did not infringe Belgian neutrality, 
for The Hague Conference had explicitly stated that 
no neutral " can avail himself of his neutrality r (a), if 
he commits hostile acts against a belligerent; (b), if 
he commits acts in favor of a belligerent. And Bel- 
gium has committed acts in favor of France. (See 
article in the Times, November i, quoted above.) 

When this is understood the stigma on the good 
name of Germany, which has made many people so 
very bitter against her, will be removed, and the suf- 
fering of Belgium be seen to be one of the most ter- 
rible tragedies, such as unhappily will not be avoided 
so long as the peoples of this world do not strive more 
successfully to understand each other's point of view. 
This necessitates the willingness of going below the 
surface. A thing may be absolutely true, and yet in 
its implication glaringly false. The alleged use of 
dum-dum bullets by the British troops is a case in 
point. 

Below are given the affidavits of two British officers 
to the effect that their Government had supplied them 
and others with dum-dum bullets. American corre- 
spondents have been shown such bullets, and to make 
the case against Great Britain absolutely sure, it can 
be truthfully stated that she was the only one at The 
Hague Conference who spoke in favor of dum-dum 



England's Conduct of the War 49 

bullets in the sub-commission, and that in the confer- 
ence of all the delegates, in 1899, twenty ayes were 
cast in favor of forbidding the use of dum-dum bullets, 
while only Great Britain and America — for Captain 
Crozier, of the United States, had come to the defense 
of the British delegate. General Ardagh — voted in 
favor of the continued use of dum-dum bullets. At the 
next conference, in 1907, America endeavored to 
reopen the case in the interest of her British cousins, 
but General Davis was voted down. 

This is an absolutely truthful account, which can be 
verified from the records of The Hague Conference. 
Since most people connect dum-dum bullets with an 
inhuman mode of warfare, they would, therefore, seem 
justified in believing that Great Britain was aggres- 
sively in favor of such a warfare, and certainly in 
favor of the use of unnecessarily brutal bullets. Noth- 
ing, however, is further from the truth, as appears 
from the speeches by Generals Ardagh and Davis. 
The following extracts are quoted from The Two 
Hague Conferences^ by William I. Hull (the World's 
Peace Foundation, Boston). Said General Sir John 
Ardagh : 

In the session of May 31, an article was accepted by 
a large majority against the use of bullets with a hard 
jacket, whose jacket does not entirely cover the core or 
has incisions in it. 

It seems to me that the use of these words describing 
technical details of construction will result in making the 
prohibition a little too general and absolute. It would not 
seemi to admit of the exception which I would desire to 
provide for, that is, the present or future construction 
of some projectile with shock sufficient to stop the stricken 
soldier and put him immediately hors de combat, thus 
fulfilling the indispensable conditions of warfare without, 
on the. other hand, causing useless suffering. 



50 Germany's Point of View 

The completely jacketed bullet of our Lee-Metford rifle 
is defective in this respect. It has been proven in one 
'of our petty wars in India that a man perforated five 
times by these bullets was still able to walk a considerable 
distance to an English hospital to have his wounds dressed. 
It was proven just recently, after the battle of Om-Dur- 
man, that the large majority of the Dervishes who were 
able to save themselves by flight had been wounded by 
small English bullets, whereas the Remington and Martini 
of the Egyptian army sufficed to disable. It was neces- 
sary to find some more efficient means, and to meet this 
necessity in India the projectile known under the name 
of dum-dum was made in the arsenal of that name near 
Calcutta. . . . 

It scarcely seems necessary for me to assert that public 
opinion in England would never sanction the use of a 
projectile which would cause useless suffering, and that 
every class of projectile of the nature is condemned in 
advance, but we claim the right and we recognize the duty 
of furnishing our soldiers with a projectile on whose re- 
sult they may rely — a projectile which will arrest, by its 
shock, the charge of an enemy and put him hors de com- 
bat immediately. . . . 

General Davis spoke, in part, as follows : 

I address myself especially to the delegates who bear 
officers' commissions in the armies of the nations repre- 
sented here. You are familiar with the whistling of bul- 
lets, you are accustomed to the sight of the dead and 
wounded. We have regulated the operations of warfare, 
we have improved the condition of neutrals; these are 
acts of high justice, but we should not forget the com- 
batant officers and simple soldiers who bear the burdens 
of warfare. I hope that this conference, convoked in 
the name of humanity, will not forget the lot of those 
who bear the inevitable losses and the cruelties of battles. 

These are not the words of men who do not believe 
in humane warfare; on the contrary, they are the 
words of men who have the courage of speaking -in 
favor of an unpopular cause. They may be in error. 



England's Conduct of the War 51 

and most people believe they are, but nothing would be 
less fair than to draw harsh conclusions as to these 
two delegates or the nations they represented from 
their opposition to a clause forbidding the use of 
dum-dum bullets. 

In so far as the present charge is concerned, that 
the British troops have been using such bullets in the 
European War, two things should be remembered : 
First, it may be considered a general rule of The 
Hague conference that its declarations " shall cease to 
be binding from the time when in a war between the 
contracting Powers one of the belligerents is joined by 
a non-contracting Power," although this special clause 
is not added to all the declarations of the conference. 
If it were not so the declarations would result in 
unfairness, for a belligerent who had not ratified the 
convention might do with impunity what another was 
forbidden to do. Secondly, in her wars in India and 
Egypt Great Britain had to do with non-contracting 
nations, and was, therefore, bound, not by The Hague 
conventions, but by her conscience. After reading the 
whole speech of General Ardagh (it was too long to 
be quoted here in its entirety) nobody can doubt that 
her conscience bade her, in the interest of her soldiers, 
to use dum-dum bullets. Her arsenals were thus filled 
with this kind of ammunition, and it would have been 
a marvel if none of them had been issued to the troops 
going to France. In America, where the handy publi- 
cation of the texts of the peace conferences of The 
Hague by the World's Peace Foundation in Boston 
has given everybody an easy means of becoming ac- 
quainted with The Hague conventions, very few people 
are familiar with them, and abroad, where no such 



52 Germany's Point of View 

convenient compilations are said to exist, even fewer 
people know exactly what is permitted and what is 
forbidden. It is, therefore, natural to assume that a 
great quantity of these forbidden bullets may have 
been issued to the troops in good faith. It is more 
difficult to believe that the denial by the Government 
was equally in good faith. But perhaps the denials 
were not official, but were made to appear so in the 
press. Germany, however, cannot be blamed for tak- 
ing a less charitable view of this affair, and for seeing 
in these dum-dum bullets another instance of "per- 
fidy," for w^hen one is fighting for one's existence one 
is not in the mood for making allowances for the 
mistakes of one's opponents. 

The affidavits of the two British officers were pub- 
lished in the official Gasette of September 29. They 
are here translated from the German text : 

I received my pistol-ammunition in Plymouth. The 
bullets were flattened in front. Since I had my doubts 
whether this ammunition was irreproachable from the 
point of view of international law, and since I was unable 
to obtain definite information on this point from my su- 
periors, I buried this ammunition. 

Four days before the battle of Mons, where I had my 
first encounter with the Germans, I packed my revolver 
in my heavy baggage, and have not carried it since. The 
ammunition was the same as had been given to me and 
the other officers of the Gordon Highlanders last June for 
the annual revolver shooting tests. 

W. E. Gordon, 

Colonel Gordon Highlanders, A. D. C. to the King. 
September 19, 1914. 

Signed in presence of Baron von Lersner, lieutenant of 
Reserve Regiment of Hussars No. 7 ; Baron von Berck- 
heim, lieutenant of Reserve Second Regiment of Guard 
Dragoons. 



England's Conduct of the War 53 

The second affidavit reads: - 

As regards the revolver ammunition, the bullets sup- 
plied v^ere flattened in front. I first saw this bullet at 
the annual maneuvers this summer. I am making this 
summary reply in v^riting at the request of Baron von 
Lersner, and in answer to questions he put to me orally. 

F. H. Neish, 

Lieutenant-colonel, i, Gordon Highlanders. 
Torgau, September 19, 1914. 

The witnesses were the same as to the affidavit of 
Colonel Gordon. On the same day and before the 
same witnesses, Lieutenant-Colonel Neish made an- 
other affidavit, as . follows : 

When I was captured on August 27 at three o'clock 
in the morning, I had only three pointed revolver bullets 
in my possession. I had borrowed them from another 
officer. I had had no other cartridges flattened in front 
than those which had been supplied and which I had 
buried. I cannot remember where I buried them, but it 
was surely several days before the battle of Mons began 
on August 23. 

The official Gazette comments on these affidavits as 
follows : ''Such cartridges can have no other purpose 
than to occasion very cruel wounds. These officers 
confess that they themselves doubted whether these 
bullets were permissible, according to international 
law, and that they buried them for that reason. Other 
members of the English army, however, have used 
these cartridges in battle, as is proved by the ammuni- 
tion which has been found loaded in captured British 
revolvers." 

Two days earlier, on September 2y, the Gazette pub- 
lished the official French explanation of the French 
dum-dum bullets, which had been found in Longwy 



54 Germany's Point of View 

in original packages, in large quantities, and of which 
photographs had been supplied to the press of Ger- 
many and other countries, and been freely printed. 
The French explanation was to the effect that the car- 
tridges had been intended for the target practice of 
the " societies for military preparation." Since most 
of these societies had inadequate stands, they had to 
be supplied with bullets whose jackets had been per- 
forated. This lessened the initial speed of the bullets 
and prevented them from passing through the thin 
protection behind the target. The use of these bullets 
in war had never been thought of. The comment of 
the Gazette on this explanation is as follows : 

It is unnecessary to inquire whether these explanations 
are true, for even if they are true they cannot mitigate 
the severe reproaches which must be made against the 
French army. The question whether the dum-dum bullets 
of our enemies were originally meant for a harmless pur- 
pose is of no consequence, considering the definitely 
proven fact that they have been found in thousands on the 
battlefields. This is the only fact which counts. And 
everyone will have to take it into consideration, if he 
wishes to form an unprejudiced judgment on the point 
whether our enemies are carrying on this war in a way 
which corresponds to the dictates of humanity. 

These are temperate words, and it would seem that 
the burden of the proof that bullets of the Longwy 
kind were not used by the French army had been 
shifted to the French Government. The mere state- 
ment that they had not been intended for the purposes 
of war is insufficient in view of the German claim 
that many have been found on the battlefields. The 
most charitable view is that in France, as in England, 
large quantities of dum-dum bullets had been on hand, 
in the one case for target practice, in the other for 



England's Conduct of the War 55 

warfare against natives in India or Egypt, and that in 
the confusion of mobilization these bullets had been 
issued to the troops before the respective Governments 
had become aware of their illegal character. 

This whole question, however, raises an interesting 
point which may well concern the next Hague Confer- 
ence. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that 
it is a fact that in the battle of Mons the Allies used 
dum-dum bullets, while the Germans did not. The 
result would have been that in an attack every German 
soldier who was hit was put hors de combat, if he 
was not killed outright, while a soldier of the Allies 
might have continued on his way, even if he was hit 
once or oftener. This would have given a very unfair 
advantage to the Allies. Would the Germans there- 
upon have been justified in perforating or flattening 
their bullets in preparation for the next battle ? Fair- 
ness would seem tO' say, yes. This, however, would 
only have induced the Allies to continue the use of 
their illegal bullets, and would have led — and, so far 
as this war is concerned, may lead, for all we know — 
to a complete breakdown of The Hague declarations, 
with the consequent disregard of its provisions also by 
that contestant who had meant to observe them. But 
if there were a permanent court in session, the inno- 
cent party could then present its proof at once, and if 
the other party continued its offenses, be specifically 
authorized to take recriminatory measures without 
losing its standing as a faithful observer of The Hague 
declarations. 

This, of course, implies that men of such bigness of 
character can be found to sit on this court that the 
various contestants will confide in their sense of jus- 



5^ Germany's Point of View 

tice. But when this day arrives there may be little 
work to do for such a court, for when the big men of 
the nations can be trusted to judge all the nations 
fairly, the nations themselves will have begun to under- 
stand one another, and the causes for war will have 
been lessened, if not completely removed. 

A Latin proverb says : " In peace prepare for war." 
An excellent adaptation of this proverb for modern 
times would be: "In peace prepare to avoid war." 
If we are intemperate in thought and speech in times 
of peace, and ready vehemently to condemn that one 
of the contestants with whom we do not sympathize, 
and to do so largely on the evidence of his opponents, 
or the equally intemperate claims of those who defend 
him, how can we hope to acquire a judicious temper? 
But unless we form the habit of just thinking, we shall 
become the playball of passion when we ourselves are 
, placed before a momentous decision. There can be 
no doubt that the habit of heated speech is one of the 
causes of the present world-war, for it has kept the 
people of Europe from understanding each other. 

General von Bernhardi is often quoted as charac- 
teristic of such intemperate speakers in Germany, and 
because of his book Germany is condemned, in spite 
of the fact that his writings were practically unknown 
there, that he was an officer on the retired list when 
he wrote them, and that he had never held an office in 
which he had any determining influence on the policy 
of the German army. It has been forgotten that the 
preservation of peace has been the text on which the 
leaders of Germany have talked to the people for more 
years than comprise a generation. 

It has also been forgotten that this was not so in 



England's Conduct of the War 57 

England, and that some of the most intemperate speak- 
ers of recent years are today in the most important 
positions. The present First Sea Lord of the Ad- 
miralty, Baron Fisher, is quoted by Mr. Ralph Lane, 
writing under the pseudonym of Norman Angell {The 
Great Illusion, page 350), as having said: 

If you rub it in, both at home and abroad, that you 
are ready for instant war, with every unit of your strength 
in the first line and waiting to be first in, and hit your 
enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and 
boil your prisoners in oil (if you take any) and torture 
his women and children, then people will keep clear of you. 

A worthy companion piece to these words of Ad- 
miral Fisher is found in an article in the Saturday 
Review of September, 1897, where we read: 

If Germany were extinguished tomorrow, the day after 
tomorrow, there is not an Englishman in the world who 
would not be richer. Nations have fought for years over 
a city or a right of succession. Must they not fight for 
two hundred million 'pounds of commerce? 

These are not solitary remarks. There are many 
more like them, uttered by men in high position and 
printed in papers of note. This is why Germany does 
not believe that England went to war for Belgium and 
why she wonders that not all the world has seen this. 



CHAPTER V 

JAPAN AND KIAU-CHAU GERMANY AND BELGIUM 

AKINETOSCOPE picture in a local playhouse 
recently showed a review of British recruits by 
Lord Roberts, fine young fellows, joyfully anticipating 
the opportunity of fighting for their country — ;and 
the right, they were told, was on their side. Suddenly 
there came into their bright faces a look almost of 
exultation, as a magnificent figure, a man not overtall, 
every inch a gentleman, moved down the line. Quietly 
he raised his silk hat, uncovering a beautifully shaped 
head. His snowy white hair shone like a halo. Here 
was a type of man suggesting the perfection of which 
the civilization of the white race is capable. The 
recruits broke out into shouts of welcome, but Lord 
Roberts hardly seemed to hear them. It was Britannia 
who was whispering to him her message of bravely 
won and stoutly kept supremacy. A gentle, absent- 
minded smile flitted across his serious face, and every- 
one who saw it knew that Lord Roberts was renewing 
in his heart, and before his young and eager country- 
men, his vow of allegiance to the noblest ideas of the 
race of which he is a splendid specimen. Oh, the pity 
of it, that the English and the Germans could not have 
understood each other before it was too late, before 
they had to meet on the battlefield of blood and hatred ! 
This picture of Lord Roberts passing in review the 
English recruits has haunted all who saw it, and has 

58 



Japan-Kiau-Chau; Germany-Belgium 59 

taken the sting out of many an unfriendly thought. It 
will never fade, but by its side there will stand, here- 
after, another picture. 

It is 9 :30 in the morning of Saturday, November 7, 
19 14, when a kindly faced little brown man, General 
Yoshimi Yamada, is advancing toward the smoulder- 
ing ruins of Tsingtau to receive from the German 
governor, Meyer- Waldeck, the surrender of the place. 
By his side and in respectful pose is seen his subordi- 
nate, the leader of the British forces. Lieutenant 
Colonel Barnadiston. The habitual gentleness of the 
Japanese makes Meyer- Waldeck's task less terrible, 
but the tragedy of having been obliged to surrender to 
an alien race an outpost of the civilization of the white 
man has cut its traces deep into his features. He 
addresses himself exclusively to the Japanese general, 
but when his words are spoken, he gives one look at 
Barnardiston ! And Barnardiston drops his eyes, those 
proud British eyes, which have been wont to survey 
the world with well deserved serenity. One look! — 
Will Barnardiston ever forget it? Will any Britisher 
ever forget it? When he rises in Parliament to call 
his people to a noble deed in the service of the civiliza- 
tion of his race, this look will strike him dumb. When 
in his club he speaks of British honor, this look will 
mock him. And when at home he tries to warm his 
heart with his pride in his race, this look will tell him 
that it was his people who, humbly taking their orders 
from the yellow race, delivered to the latter what was 
left of the paradise which Germany had created on 
the shores of the Bay of Kiau-chau. 

On these shores there stood, in 1898, a Chinese fish- 
ing village of a few hundred inhabitants. In August, 



6o Germany's Point of View 

1914, a thriving city had grown up here, nestled on the 
slopes of the rugged mountain chains of Lao-chau and 
Hung-liu-chui. Sixteen years ago these hills were 
largely bare, as they had been for generations, while 
last spring they were green with the verdure of mil- 
lions of little trees, planted and sown there by German 
hands. No nation loves and nurtures trees as the 
Germans do, for they are never so happy as when they 
live where wooded slopes meet broad expanses of 
clear water. A school of forestry had been established 
in Tsingtau, and from all China and from Japan people 
had come to learn how to grow new forests, and how 
to preserve and improve what the mismanagement of 
their ancestors had left to them. An i^lpine club 
encouraged mountain climbing and the preservation of 
the Chinese antiquities, often built on almost inacces- 
sible peaks, for the mountains rise to a height of several 
thousand feet directly from the sea. 

Four successful missions were carrying on their 
helpful work, unhampered by the local government. 
There were three German mission schools — one Cath- 
olic and two Protestant, and also an American mission. 
There was the large technical high school, numbering 
several hundred Chinese and European students. 
Also, one special school for Chinese was preparing 
the natives for the positions in the civil service not 
only of the protectorate, but also of the large railway 
leading into the interior of the country, which had been 
built by a syndicate of Chinese and German bankers. 

A wonderful water supply, brought from a distance, 
and a perfect sewerage system had made Tsingtau an 
ideal residence city. Open to the sea, it caught the 
welcome ocean breaths in the hot summer months, 



Japan-Kiau-Chau; Germany-Belgium 6i 

while it was wisely built where in winter the mountains 
cut off the icy northwest winds. Large modern hotels 
and beautifully cleaned bathing beaches invited sum- 
mer visitors, and year by year more Europeans from 
Hongkong and other places, and also Chinese gentle- 
men, sent their families here and spent their own 
vacations in this German town. 

The harbor, however, was the greatest work, 
achieved with the technical perfection of which only 
a great nation is capable. Professor Westengard, the 
American legal adviser to the Emperor of Siam, told 
friends only a few months ago, before he left for 
Siam, that Tsingtau had the most superb quays and 
docks anywhere in the world. The harbor and its 
approaches were deep enough for the biggest ships, 
and in addition there was a hugh floating dry dock. 
A little harbor somewhat farther south was gay, espe- 
cially in the summer months, with the smaller craft. 
Innumerable sailing vessels and launches rode here at 
anchor, and proved that also the sports were not for- 
gotten in this place. 

The streets were clean and well laid out. Many 
trees and lovely parks gave promise of the future 
almost fairy-like beauty of the city. All the modern 
inventions and the comforts they provide were to be 
found in Tsingtau. Everywhere German foresight 
and tlioroughness, German love of nature and dili- 
gence, were in evidence. And, best of all, in the man- 
agement of the public affairs there appeared the desire 
of administering this protectorate as a trust for 
humanity. Here, at last, the Germans felt, they had 
the opportunity of making peaceful and moral con- 
quests, China was awakening to the call of a new 



62 Germany's Point of View 

day. This China, so long asleep, so big, so thickly 
populated that of every four people in the world one 
is a Chinaman, had long bought its guns from the 
Western world, but now had begun to look also to the 
civilization of the white people. Here was Germany's 
chance to do its part, to transmit some of the values 
inherited from a glorious past to that brother of the 
human family who, while in some respects the oldest, 
was yet in others the very youngest. 

Germany undertook this task in Tsingtau with joy- 
ful eagerness. She knew that you cannot make an- 
other the sharer of your best possessions without 
yourself being the gainer in strength and inner worth. 
She saw with pride the city grow and the number of 
inhabitants pass the ten-thousand mark. She saw 
ever more ships dock in her new harbor, new indus- 
tries begun, more mountains opened, more iron ore 
brought to the smelters, more Chinese business houses 
settled here, more prosperity, more contentment, more 
happiness pervade the fifty square miles of her new 
protectorate. She welcomed every year more visitors 
and saw them leave again with sincere admiration 
for the great civilizing work done by a nation who had 
had little chance heretofore of proving itself an active 
humanizing force in the world. 

Today the young trees are no more. British and 
Japanese guns have bared the hills. The city is de- 
stroyed. The pupils are scattered, and the Oriental 
world, just ready to learn the lesson of civilization of 
the white man, has had an object lesson of his 
destructiveness. 

All this and much, much more the British com- 
mander read in that one look of Governor Meyer- 



Japan-Kiau-Chau; Germany-Belgium 63 

Waldeck. He could not stand it. But as he looked 
away, his eyes fell on the road across the bay over 
which the Japanese and his own troops had come. It 
was on neutral land, inviolate by international law. 
The Chinese Government had protested, but neither 
his superior officer, General Yoshimi Yamada, nor he 
himself had heeded it. They had set out, in strange 
companionship, these two, to destroy a paradise, be- 
cause it was German, and had violated Chinese neu- 
trality and broken The Hague Convention. Did the 
irony of it flash across the British mind, at that mo- 
ment, that his own Government had claimed to be at 
war with Germany because Germany had done, in dire 
need, what England and Japan together had wilfully 
done here? 

Nobody can ever know the thoughts of Lieutenant 
Colonel Barnardiston under the lash of that one look. 
At his feet he saw the ruins of Tsingtau, but ere he 
could study them well, his superior, the kindly little 
brown man, called to him, and with a " Very well, sir ; 
at your command, sir," the British soldier fell into step 
with General Yoshima Yamada and walked back with 
him to their common camp. 

In London another day will dawn, when another 
company of recruits will be waiting for the field 
marshal. Again he will walk down the ranks, again 
the shouts from many British throats will greet him, 
again he will lift his head. But will he again hear the 
voice of Britannia? Or will it be the voice of an- 
other race, to which he will not answer this time with 
a smile, but with a respectful, " Very well, sir ; at your 
command, sir" ? 

In view of this remarkable subordination of a high 



64 Germany's Point of View 

British officer to the command of the Japanese in 
Tsingtau, one may well ask whether the flippant way 
in which many Englishmen have spoken of the war 
will not soon be changed. In Boston an Englishman 
said to a German acquaintance last September : 

That is a glorious scrap we are having in Europe at 
present. You know we had to see who was the biggest 
fellow in the old world. And didn't we steal a march 
on you in the very beginning ? We made the world believe 
that you had broken a treaty and international law by 
going into Belgium? 

Thanks to Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Robert Bacon, 
both of whom would remove this question from the 
uncertainty of poplar disapproval by having the 
United States enter an official protest against what 
seems to them an infraction of international law on 
the part of Germany, the true state of affairs may ere 
long become public knowledge. 

In so far as these gentlemen are endeavoring to 
bring this about, they deserve the thanks of all fair- 
minded people. It is, however, very regrettable that 
they have singled out for their disapproval only Ger- 
many. Did Japan not violate the same articles of The 
Hague Convention when she infringed the neutrality 
of China in order to attack Tsingtau? Why should 
the United States not protest against Japan's offense 
against international law? In so far as Great Britain 
is concerned, both gentlemen are justified in not de- 
manding a protest, because Great Britain was the only 
one of the great Powers that did not ratify the articles 
referring to the rights and duties of neutrals in the 
warfare on land. Great Britain, therefore, was at 
liberty to enter neutral territory without breaking any 



Japan-Kiau-Chau; Germany-Belgium 65 

law that was binding on her. She did, however, ratify 
the articles referring to neutrals in naval warfare, and 
these she has repeatedly broken. The most glaring 
case was when the British cruiser Highflyer sank the 
German auxiliary cruiser Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse 
in neutral territorial waters.* Why do neither Mr. 
Roosevelt nor Mr. Bacon deem this infringement of 
international law worthy of a protest ? 

As regards the case of Germany, so long as no 
official protest gives her the opportunity of an official 
reply, her defense must rest with those who believe in 
her. Fortunately, new material is coming to light 
every week, and, sooner or later, its cumulative weight 
may be so strong that Germany's case will appear 
established. 

Germany claims that she did not break articles one 
and two of the chapter of The Hague Convention on 
which Messrs. Roosevelt and Bacon would base the 
United States protest, because article seven of the 
same chapter states that no neutral can claim the 
privileges guaranteed to him in the earlier articles, if 
he com^mits, (a), hostile acts against a belligerent, 
(b), acts friendly to a belligerent. Article seven has 
special reference to individuals, but if an individual 
can thus lose his neutrality, how much more a state? 

The chief question then is : Did Belgium lose her 
neutrality through any acts of her Government? One 
answer to this is found when one compares two state- 
ments recently issued by British sources. On Octo- 
ber 12 the London Times endeavored to defend the 

*The attack on the German cruiser Dresden in Chilean 
waters on March 15, 1915, for which Great Britain has been 
obliged to apologize to Chile, is another of the worst 
instances of international bad faith. 



66 Germany's Point of View 

British Government against the charge of negUgence 
because it had given insufficient help to Belgium, and 
especially to Antwerp. The Times says : 

The last and greatest difficulty was the neutrality which 
had been imposed upon Belgium against her will. [The 
reader will please note these words.] A more fatal gift 
was never presented to any State. It prevented her from 
combining with the Netherlands for the defence of their 
common and inseparable interests, and, worse than that, 
it made it impracticable for Belgium to enter into any 
conversation or arrangement, military or other, which 
would insure to her the rapid and effective support of 
her English friends. All such ideas if they were enter- 
tained — and England's weakness on land threw them 
somewhat into the shade — had to be postponed until Bel- 
gian territory was violated by an aggressor, when in all 
human probability the aid desired would come too late. 

If this means anything, it means that, according to 
the Times, Belgium could not enter into any " conver- 
sation or arrangement, military or other," without 
breaking her neutrality. Strangely enough, the Ger- 
man Government announced at about the same time 
that the documents found in Brussels, but, unfortu- 
nately for Germany, not dating later than 1906 and 
19 12, contained ample evidence of the fact that defi- 
nite arrangements had been made between Belgium 
and Great Britain. This news was given to the 
American press on October 14 and 15 and elicited 
from the British ambassador the following reply : 

No such agreement has ever existed, as the Germans 
well know. General Grierson is dead, and Colonel, now 
General Barnardiston [in the Japanese reports he is called 
lieutenant colonel] is commanding the British forces be- 
fore Tsingtau. In 1900 General Grierson was on the gen- 
eral staff at the War Office, and Colonel Barnardiston 
was military attache in Brussels. In view of the solemn 
guarantee given by Great Britain to protect the neutrality 



Japan-Kiau-Chau; Germany-Belgium 6y 

of Belgium against violation from any side, some academic 
discussions may, through the instrumentality of Colonel 
Barnardiston have taken place between General Grierson 
and the Belgian military authorities as to what assistance 
the British army might be able to afford to bombard- 
ment should one of her neighbors violate that neutrality. 
Some notes with reference to the subject may exist in 
the archives at Brussels. 

Is this not a practical admission by Great Britain 
that she and Belgium had entered into a "conversa- 
tion or arrangement, military or other " ? By so doing, 
however, Belgium had broken her own neutrality, and 
Great Britain had helped her do it, according to the 
British view of the case as expressed in the London 
Times on October 12. 

That this is no mere sophistry appears from the 
observation that Great Britain had become familiar 
with the military secrets of France through a series of 
military arrangements worked out by the French and 
British general staffs. How could Great Britain ever 
have given her help to Belgium against France without 
laying herself open to the charge of treachery? 

And more, Great Britain wishes to rest the inviola- 
bility of the neutrality of Belgium on the treaty of 
1839 instead of on the articles of The Hague conven- 
tions. There were five signatories to that treaty, 
Great Britain, France, Prussia, Russia, and Austria. 
The relations of these five Powers towards Belgium 
were to be identical. Did not Great Britain break the 
spirit of this treaty by entering into military conversa- 
tions with Belgium, and thus acquainting herself with 
the Belgian military secrets? Suppose some future 
British Government had Invaded Belgium, how could 
any of the other signatory Powers have given success- 



68 Germany's Point of View 

ful help to Belgium against an enemy who was in 
possession of her secrets of defense? 

Belgian relations with France are said to have been 
even closer. Compelled by treaty to maintain an army 
and several fortresses, Belgium readily turned to one 
of the great military Powers for her instruction in the 
enormously complicated scientific subject of modern 
ordnance. She happened to turn to France, and 
French officers, it is said, had ready access to Belgian 
fortresses. Human nature would not be what it is if 
this had not led to an intimacy between the French 
and Belgians such as is incompatible with honest neu- 
trality. Sir Edward Grey was informed {Blue Book 
No. 157) that Germany had "absolutely unimpeach- 
able information " that France was planning an attack 
through Belgium. He did not challenge this evidence, 
but went before Parliament with his claim that Great 
Britain should join in the war against Germany, be- 
cause the latter had violated Belgian neutrality. 

People in search of the truth should read again the 
speeches of Sir Edv/ard Grey and Mr. Asquith in 
Parliament on August 3, 4, and 5, and remember these 
several things, which both * men knew but did not 
mention when they hurled at Germany the charge of 
being a faithless breaker of treaties and a violator of 
international law. 

I. The Hague convention of 1907 had regulated the 
rights and duties of neutrals in war on land. This con- 
vention had been ratified by all the great Powers, except 
Great Britain. 



* Further investigations have made it very doubtful whether 
Mr. Asquith was informed by Sir Edward Grey of the latter's 
relations with foreign states. Mr. Asquith, therefore, may 
have to be acquitted of the charge of intellectual dishonesty. 



Japan-Kiau-Chau; Germany-Belgium 69 

2. There was in this convention an article, No. 7, which 
stated under what conditions a neutral loses his rights 
as such. 

5. Belgium had entered, to say the least, " conversa- 
tions " with Great Britain, and had such close relations 
with France that her neutrality was compromised, if not, 
as Germany claims, violated. 

4. The treaty of 1839 had been declared of doubtful 
validity in 1870, and by some speakers in Parliament had 
been declared voided by the treaties of 1870 (quoted in 
the Transcript, October 14, 1914). 

5. The official British opinion as regards the very simi- 
lar treaty guaranteeing the neutrality of Luxemburg was 
on record as contrary to the interpretation which Sir Ed- 
ward Grey and Mr. Asquith wished to give the treaty of 
1839. 

In substantiation of the last two points the follow- 
ing quotations may be given : From the discussion on 
the treaties of 1870 in the House of Commons, August 
II, 1870. Mr. Osborne: 

This treaty is entirely superfluous, if the treaty of 1839 
is worth anything at all. In the eyes of Austria and 
Russia that treaty of 1839 is entirely superseded by this. 
You have struck a blow at that treaty, which you can 
never put in the same position again. 

The next quotation is from the London Times of 
December 17, 1870. The Times then was the official 
organ of the Government. Bismarck, exasperated by 
the continuous acts of Luxemburg, amounting to an 
abuse of her neutrality in favor of France, had given 
notice to the signatory Powers who in 1867 had guar- 
anteed the perpetual neutrality of Luxemburg — just 
as in 1839 ^hey had guaranteed the neutrality of Bel- 
gium — that the North German Federation was no 
longer bound to respect the neutrality of Luxemburg. 
As a matter of fact, no infringement of her neutrality 



70 Germany's Point of View 

took place, although it was momentarily expected. The 
Times said: 

A very just distinction was drawn by one of our cor- 
respondents yesterday between the military right to ignore 
the neutrality of Luxemburg — if that neutrality has been 
abused — and the right to demand its eventual annexation 
to Germany. The neutrality of Luxemburg is one thing, 
the independence of Luxemburg is another, and the for- 
mer might be violated by a temporary occupation without 
permanently compromising the latter. It is just possible, 
indeed, that exigencies may have been created by the par- 
tisanship of the Luxemburg authorities which could not 
await the decision of a conference. 

Those who read this should remember that Germany 
promised to respect the independence and integrity of 
Belgium after the war and to pay for any damage 
done by the passage of the German troops. It is im- 
possible to state it too emphatically and too frequently 
that independence and integrity were the only things 
which also Sir Edward Grey promised Belgium for 
the future (Blue Book No. 155), and that he dropped 
neutrality from the British guarantee. This is very 
important, if one remembers that Great Britain has 
not ratified The Hague Convention guaranteeing the 
inviolability of neutral countries. Great Britain, then, 
in urging Belgium to go to war, promised her — integ- 
rity and independence and War. Nor did she come 
successfully to the support of Belgium, so that Sir 
Edward Gray has to defend himself at present both at 
home and in Belgium against the charge of having 
forsaken a brave ally. Germany promised Belgium 
the same — independence and integrity and Peace ! 

There were, however, people in 1870 just as there 
are today, who said : 



Japan-Kiau-Chau; Germany-Belgium yi 

Even if Belgium (then Luxemburg) had forfeited her 
rights of neutrality, no one of the signatory Powers had 
the right to enter her territory before a Conference had 
authorized such an invasion. Germany should have taken 
counsel with the other Powers first. 

The Times of December i6, 1870, ho v^ ever, spoke 
as follows: 

A correspondent suggests that " the danger arising from 
breaches of neutrality may under given circumstances be 
far too serious and too immediate to await the slow result 
of diplomatic action," but Count Bismarck has deprived 
himself of the benefit of this plea (by not entering Luxem- 
burg at once). Had there been imminent danger he would 
not have reserved the question of further action, but have 
at once occupied the duchy and have appealed to the other 
Powers to approve the step. The analogies of common 
life illustrate the situation. A man may not take the law 
into his own hands at his pleasure, but if he is attacked 
on the highways he closes with his assailant, and should 
an accident follow, a jury will return a verdict of " justi- 
fiable homicide." This is the reasoning practically adopted 
by the ministry. 

It will be noted that Germany did in 19 14 exactly 
what the British ministry of 1870 said should be done 
in such cases ; act first and explain afterwards ; for 
the British ministry reasoned that if there is time for 
an explanation beforehand, the action itself becomes 
impermissible. 

Most interesting Expressions of the official British 
opinion are found also in the Times of December 9 
and 17, 1870. On the latter day we also read: 

In measuring the responsibility which rests upon our- 
selves and others, under the Luxemburg convention, it is 
essential to emancipate ourselves from purely legal con- 
ceptions. The assumed right of five great Powers to 
exercise a kind of superintendence over the minor States 
of Europe is, in itself, a result of political necessity. . . . 



72 Germany's Point of View 



It would be absurd to suppose that we, or the other con- 
tracting States, pledged ourselves in perpetuum never to 
reconsider those reasons, however circumstances might be 
changed. 

Lest this opinion appear antiquated and invalid to 
the modern searcher after truth, the recent view of the 
Supreme Court of the United States may be quoted in 
substantiation. Page 600 of Vol. cxxx of United 
States Reports: 

But that circumstances may arise which would not only 
justify the Government in disregarding their stipulations 
(i. e., of treaties), but demand in the interest of the coun- 
try that it should do so, there can be no question. Unex- 
pected events may call for a change in the policy of the 
country. 

And again (page 602) the Supreme Court held: 

That whilst it would always be a matter of the utmost 
gravity and delicacy to refuse to execute a treaty, the 
power to do so was a prerogative of which no nation could 
be deprived without deeply affecting its independence. 

It was just because of the uncertainty of treaties 
like that of 1839 that The Hague Conference of 1907 
formulated the articles on neutrality, which all the 
Great Powers, except Great Britain, have ratified. 
These are all matters which Sir Edward Grey knew, 
which Mr. Asquith knew ; and soon the public at large 
will also know them. With them clearly in mind, let 
a man read over again the speeches by the two emi- 
nent British statesmen which swept their country, and 
little Belgium, too, into the war, and let him ask him- 
self whether the English gentleman is right who said, 
" We stole a march on Germany by making the world 
believe that we entered the war because she tried to go 
through Belgium." 



CHAPTER VI , 

GERMANY AS A WORLD POWER ALSACE-LORRAINE 

PROFESSOR A. C. COOLIDGE wrote a book in 
1910, entitled, America as a World Power, which 
has been translated both into French and German. Its 
German title is Die Vereinigten Staaten als Weltmacht. 
"Twenty years ago," Professor Coolidge says, "the 
expression ' World Power ' was unknown in most lan- 
guages ; today it is a political commonplace, bandied 
about in wide discussion." Many English translators, 
however, of German books are not yet familiar with 
this term, rendering the German Weltmacht with 
" world dominion," or even " domination of the 
world." As a result, the legitimate aims of Germany 
of being a world Power are presented to American 
readers as wild aspirations on her part to gain domin- 
ion of the world. There is a wider gulf to mutual 
understanding between the English-speaking and the 
German-speaking world in their different languages 
than many people have realized. At the present time, 
when most of them are searching for accurate infor- 
mation, such linguistic errors become apparent, and 
most regrettable, because they tend to convey very 
erroneous impressions. 

Professor Coolidge defines his book as " a study of 
the part which the United States plays in the great 
drama of world politics," and asserts that " complete 
equality, has never existed, and can never exist, be-, 

73 



74 Germany's Point of View 

tween States of greatly unequal strength. In practice 
the larger must tend to arrange many matters without 
consulting every wish of their numerous smaller breth- 
ren." There are, according to him, five world Powers, 
taking rank in the following order : 

1. The British Empire, " exceeding any two of its 
rivals," and extending over nearly eleven and one-half 
million square miles, with 400 million inhabitants, of whom 
sixty million are whites. 

2. Russia, extending over eight and one-hali million 
square miles, with 150 million inhabitants, of whom 125 
million are whites. 

J. France, extending over four and one-half million 
square miles, with ninety-five million inhabitants, of whom 
forty million are whites. 

4. The United States, extending over almost three and 
three-fourths million square miles, with ninety-three mil- 
lion inhabitants, of whom seventy-five million are whites. 

5. Germany, extending only over one million square 
miles, with seventy-five million inhabitants, of whom sixty 
million are whites. 

In these figures Mr. Coolidge includes the colonial 
possessions of the several nations, and remarks that 
all the colonial possessions of Germany, except South- 
west Africa, are in the tropics. 

Germany has suspected for several years, rightly or 
wrongly, that her three great neighbors, with a total 
extent of twenty-four and a half million square miles 
and with 620 million inhabitants, were combining 
against her. She felt justified in resenting this attempt 
of depriving her of the right to "play a part in the 
great drama of world politics." When German writers 
spoke of Weltmacht they were not thinking of a 
dominion of the world. On the contrary, they wished 
to rouse their fellow-countrymen to the danger that 
threatened them, if a powerful combination of strong 



Germany as a World Power 75 

nations should regard them as too insignificant to be 
reckoned among the world Powers, and should proceed 
to arrange, in the words of Mr. Coolidge, "many- 
matters without consulting Germany." 

Germany has been so successful since 187 1 that the 
very idea of relegating her to a second-rank Power 
may come as a surprise, especially to those who have 
only recently become interested in world affairs. Mr. 
Coolidge's figures, however, speak for themselves. 
Germany, it will be noticed, stands in the last place, 
and Austria has been dropped from the list. 

These figures are eloquent also in another direction. 
If we pair off Austria and Turkey against Japan, Bel- 
gium, and Servia, it is seen that Germany, with less 
than 100 million inhabitants, and drawing on the 
resources of only one million square miles, is drying 
to hold her own against more than 600 million people, 
drawing their resources from twenty-four and one-half 
million square miles. If one remembers that Germany 
is shut off from her colonies, the odds against her are 
even greater. And yet there are those who would add 
the three and three-quarter million square miles and 
almost 100 million inhabitants of the United States 
to those who are trying to crush Germany ! 

No estimate of the present European crisis which 
does not take these facts into consideration can be en- 
tirely true. Germany may have given offense to her 
powerful neighbors and have driven them to an alli- 
ance against her. She may have done so wilfully or 
she may have done so unwittingly. It may have been 
she, or it may have been they, who were more to blame 
for the mutual misunderstanding and intemperate 
speech which has kept the several nations of Europe 



']6 Germany's Point of View 

apart. But is this a sufficient reason for transferring 
the bitterness of thought and intemperance of speech 
to another country, happily at peace with all the 
contestants ? 

It is the one great aim of the United States to bring 
about, by the weight of her own morality, conditions 
of justice among the nations of the world under which 
another such war becomes impossible. If the United 
Spates, however, enters the contest either by force of 
arms or as an ardent partisan, and thus proves that 
she, too, is subject to the call to passion, she loses her 
right of leading the way into new and higher paths of 
international righteousness. 

Early last year civil war in Ireland seemed immi- 
nent. Since then a bigger thought has taken hold of 
the people and reconciled their differences. Why 
should not a similar miracle sweep away the hatred 
and misunderstandings now rending the whole of 
Europe? And is there any nation left but the United 
States where such a bigger and nobler thought 'can 
take root and grow until it spreads over the whole 
world ? 

Says Professor Henri Lichtenberger in his splendid 
book, Germany and Its Evolution in Modern Times 
(1913, translated from the French by A. M. Ludo- 
vici) : 

Perhaps it is not altogether chimerical to think that 
the twentieth century will see the growth and spirit of the 
modern religion of unity, and that we shall gradually ap- 
proach the ideal of the "good European " which, during 
the height of the nationalistic enthusiasm, Nietzsche had 
the courage to preach to his countrymen. 

This estimate of Nietzsche by a Frenchman, who is 



Germany as a World Power yy 

at present the French exchange professor in Harvard, 
shatters a stock argument of the anti-Germans. 
Nietzsche was a great man but had not much influence 
in Germany. He wielded the German language in a 
way which defies translation, and cannot be under- 
stood by fragmentary sentences. It is true that he 
preached the gospel of strength. But if one really 
wishes to know what he meant one should either read 
Professor Lichtenberger's book, or, better still, have 
attended his Harvard lectures. 

While it is obviously impossible to comment on all 
the errors due to the differences of language in Amer- 
ica and in Germany, and to the broken cables and the 
interruption of other direct means of communication, 
a few more very characteristic errors deserve 
attention. 

There is a story current, and vouched for by many 
people, to the effect that it has been the custom of the 
German army and navy officers for many years to 
toast at their official dinners *' The Day " on which the 
invasion of France and England would take place. 
This toast has been variously called Am Tag, Dem 
Tag, and Der Tag. From a linguistic point of view 
the first two forms are impossible. If the toast 
were drunk, it would be Der Tag. A close investi- 
gation has proved that there is no substantiation what- 
soever of the report of such a toast having been drunk 
in the army. All those who have claimed to speak 
with authority have had reference to a habit in the 
navy. Very fortunately for those who wish to deny 
the truth of this report, the German discipline is so 
strict that it even regulates, in the navy manual, the 
toasts to be drunk at official dinners on shipboard. 



78 Germany's Point of View 

The regulation reads that there shall be only one toast 
— Se. Majestdt der Kaiser, hurrah! And it adds 
that no other toast shall be drunk.* 

Another canard which has already been officially 
denied had reference to an army order by the German 
Emperor expressing his disregard for '* Sir John 
French's contemptible little army." So-called fac- 
simile reproductions of the order were posted all over 
England and the body of the text was cabled to Amer- 
ica. If the censor had not refused to pass also the 
heading, it would have been seen at once that the 
whole thing was a clumsy forgery. In the first place, 
it began: "His Royal and Imperial Majesty.'* This 
is the English way of referring to the monarch, while 
the German way is "His Imperial and Royal Maj- 
esty." Secondly, the order was dated not only " Head- 
quarters," as all genuine orders are, but contained the 
name of the place where the headquarters were sup- 
posed to be. This, too, was contrary to the German 
custom, because the name of the place where the 
Emperor is staying during the war is always kept a 
secret. 

The greatest story, however, has grown up in the 
minds of many people in connection with Alsace- 
Lorraine. This province is not only cited as an in- 
stance of German mismanagement, but has been repre- 
sented as French at heart, and anxious to return to a 
political union with France. One often hears remarks 
about German greed and lack of political wisdom in 
forcing France to surrender these beautiful provinces 
to Germany in 1871. 

* For an authoritative denial of this story, see Collier's 
Weekly, March 27, 1915, p. 6. 



Germany as a World Power 79 

It may be readily conceded that there are, espe- 
cially in the northwest, numerous French sympathizers, 
and that there are in addition many men of education 
who, like Professor Lichtenberger, himself the son 
of an Alsatian family, wish to see Alsace-Lorraine 
develop into a country of " double culture." This does 
not mean with them half German and half French, 
but fully German and fully French. It may be 
doubted whether any people are capable of thus carry- 
ing the civilization of two distinct races. There are 
some exceptional men who can do this, but so far as 
the masses are concerned it is impossible. Politically 
speaking, therefore, " double culture '' amounts to a 
French propaganda, and is generally classed with the 
aims of the more outspoken French sympathizers. 

When Alsace-Lorraine was taken over from France 
in 1 87 1, it had approximately 1,500,000 inhabitants. 
Before introducing the new form of government, the 
people were given permission to decide whether they 
wished to retain French citizenship or become Ger- 
mans. One hundred and sixty thousand people, most 
of them in Lorraine, chose French citizenship, while 
only about 50,000 decided to emigrate to France. The 
official figures of emigration in 191 1 were only 472, of 
whom 451 came to America. These figures are negli- 
gible, considering the fact that the number of the 
inhabitants has grown to almost two millions. 

Beginning with 1875, Alsace-Lorraine was per- 
mitted to send fifteen representatives to the Reichstag, 
the full quota to which her numbers entitled her, but 
she was not given the full rights of a confederated 
state. Her local Diet had limited powers, and the 
country's discontent with these regulations showed in 



8o Germany's Point of View 

the solid anti-Government front of her representatives. 
From 1875 to 1887 only "Alsatians" were returned 
to the Reichstag. In 1890, that is, twenty years after 
the war, this number dropped from fifteen to ten ; in 
1893 to eight; it rose again to ten in 1898, but then 
dropped to nine in 1903, to seven in 1907 and to two 
in 1912. The remaining thirteen representatives were 
divided among the several parties, showing that 
Alsace-Lorraine had begun to identify her interests 
with those of the empire at large. 

These figures do not speak so loud as the enthusi- 
astic proclamations of the few French nationalists, 
translated and quoted in America, but they carry 
greater weight, and reveal more clearly the true state 
of the 1912 Reichstag delegation which was due to 
the new constitution granted in 191 1. 

Even yet the country is not a full-fledged state of 
the Confederation of German States called the Ger- 
man Empire. It has its representatives in the Reichs- 
tag like the others, but its three delegates in the 
Bundesrat are bound by a peculiar restriction. If they 
should vote with Prussia, and by so doing secure a 
majority for the side on which Prussia is voting, they 
shall not be counted. This is a check placed on Alsace- 
Lorraine, and especially on Prussia, by the other Ger- 
man states, and shows how erroneous the idea is that 
Prussia could do, and actually did, in the empire what- 
ever she chose. 

The inhabitants of Alsace are thoroughly German,* 
many of them being unable to speak or understand 
French. Some of the educated classes know both 
languages, but even in such homes German is spoken 

* See Why Europe Is at War, ch. 3. 



Germany as a World Pozver 8i 

almost exclusively. Nor need this surprise one; for 
Alsace is an old German country, " fraudulently 
snatched from the German Empire by Louis xiv/' as 
Professor Lichtenberger says.* The Germans, he sug- 
gests, should not have waited until 1871, but should 
have taken Alsace in 18 15, but 

the diplomatists had failed to bring the work to a satis- 
factory conclusion. They had left Alsace in the hands 
of France, who in the past had torn it away from the 
German Empire, to whose security it was indispensable. 

Germany has always claimed this while Bismarck 
elucidated it in his famous speech,f where he pointed 
out that the South German States refused to join the 
empire unless the danger of a French ever ready sally 
port, which existed in Strassburg, was removed. 

But the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine in 1871 was 
more than an allowance to military necessity; it was 
an act of justice. These lands had been loyal German 
states until the Thirty Years' War, when parts were 
ceded to France. Toul and Verdun changed hands 
first, then followed Metz and the surrounding coun- 
try, and finally, in 1681, in time of absolute peace, 
Louis XIV seized Strassburg. Of all the German 
princes only Frederic William, the Great Elector, saw 
his duty and answered the Alsatian cry for help. The 
emperor sent him some troops, but their support was 
lukewarm, and the expedition failed. An old account 
of the final battle contains these words : " When the 
great Turenne saw that fortune was favoring the Ger- 
man side, he advanced the French guards and some 
English battalions." These English soldiers were prob- 

* Germany and Its Evolution in Modern Times, p. 134. 
t See The German Classics, Vol. x. 



82 Germany's Point of View 

ably mercenaries, but it is a noteworthy fact that the 
English should have fought side by side with the 
French on December 26, 1674, when the latter set out 
to capture the German city of Strassburg, to which 
they had not a vestige of right; and that 240 years 
later they should again be fighting together, the French 
and the English, in order to deprive Germ.any once 
more, and, if possible, forever, of Alsace-Lorraine. 

France acquired these lands in the seventeenth cen- 
tury, and as late as toward the end of the eighteenth 
century she had made practically no progress in her 
attempts at turning the people into Frenchmen. As 
late as 1782 a History and Description of Alsace and 
Its Inhabitants was published at Decker's in Basel, 
written in German. The author says : 

The Alsatians have been long wishing for a historical- 
geographical handbook, in which their fatherland and its 
true appearance is depicted. The works of Father Laguille 
and the immortal Councillor Schopflin are not only written 
in languages which are practically unknown to ordinary 
men, but they also contain too much material. 

This clearly shows that the Alsatians had tena- 
ciously clung to their German mother tongue through 
the almost two centuries of French occupation. 
Learned Latin books were, of course, unintelligible 
to them, but even the French books they could not 
read. A handy geography had to be written for them 
in German as late as in 1782. 

Formerly this might have seemed surprising, but 
since Dr. Heinrich Rocholl discovered the old Alsa- 
tian records and published many of them in 1888 
(Gotha, F. A. Perthes), it has become known how 
tenaciously these people fought against tremendous 



Germany as a World Power 83 

odds to preserve their German identity, their German 
allegiance, their old rights and privileges, and above 
all their mother tongue. The vain calls for help 
addressed to the empire, and the duplicity of King 
Louis XIV, are vividly portrayed. There is the letter 
in Louis's own hand guaranteeing the people their 
former privileges and their communal freedom, and 
there are the records of the year of terror, 1673, 
when the people of most of the cities had to do hard 
labor and destroy their own fortresses at the peril of 
their lives. There are the documents of French con- 
spiracies to overthrow what the king had promised 
them, and in between there is this noble sounding 
speech by the French ambassador: 

The king does not at all care to possess these cities of 
yours. They are far too insignificant that he should, for 
their sake, sully his glory, or be willing to have people 
say that he had wished to take them off their guard. . . . 
On the contrary, I can definitely assure you that if your 
cities were to surrender to the king of their own accord, 
and if you came to tell me so, he would not accept them; 
for the king has only three ends in view in his reign; 
glory, justice, and the interests of his kingdom ! la gloire, 
la justice, et rinterest de son royaume. 

This message was given to the people in 1672, and 
in the next year the cities were unmercifully re- 
duced, and a few years later even Strassburg was 
stolen and added to the "glorious, justice-loving" 
kingdom of France ! 

One may well ask how many of the Frenchmen who 
during these past forty-three years have grieved at the 
loss of Strassburg and draped its statue in mourning 
every year on July 14, have known how this city hap- 
pened to belong to France in the first place. Prob- 
ably not one in ten thousand, possibly even less. 



84 Germany's Point of View 

The whole of Alsace was German, spoke German, 
and wanted to return to Germany through almost 200 
years. But when the French Revolution swept the 
country ; when the oppressors were turned out ; when 
the long-thwarted German love of personal and com- 
munal freedom was fanned into wild fires of enthusi- 
asm ; when, after that, Napoleon came along, appealing 
to the imagination of the people ; when, for the first 
time in centuries, Alsatian men reached the pin- 
nacles of national reputation ; when France seemed 
to be leading the world into a brighter and happier 
future, while Germany remained weak and seemingly 
unmoved by the dawn of a new era, then the people 
of Alsace-Lorraine became partly French. They were 
proud of being a part of that nation which meant light 
and progress in the world. 

It would be idle to deny that from Napoleon i to 
187 1 the Alsatians began to feel more and more 
French. Changing thus their ideas of centuries, they 
yet clung with unswerving faith to one thing — their 
German speech. In 1838 the following words were 
publicly spoken in Strassburg and reprinted by 
Johann Wilhelm Baum: 

We speak German ! This does not only mean that we 
refuse to abjure our mother tongue, but that we wish to 
preserve German ways and customs, German seriousness 
and friendship, German unselfishness and Gemuthlichkeit 
in our whole life, in our faith, in everything we think 
and do, and that we intend to leave these qualities as a 
sacred inheritance to our children. This is our patriotism. 
. . . Politically we are French and wish to remain so. 
But, when we preach or sing, write or read, pray or make 
poetry, we have to do it in German. Only under these 
conditions can we be faithful, pious, brave and lovers of 
freedom. Take away our speech — and you will bring up 
a race of slaves, whom you may never again trust. We 



Germany as a World Power 85 

have given much, sacrificed much. We ask nothing in 
return, and will not even count our cost. But what is left 
they should not take from us. They must leave us our 
German Christianity, and not try to dress up our preachers 
in Paris. They must not forbid our children to speak 
to us as we have spoken to our fathers and mothers. They 
must not spoil our love of song, nor tear our past from 
our hearts. 

This, however, was the very thing Napoleon iii 
tried to do, as is proved by the documents found by 
Dr. Rocholl. He met with vigorous protests, not 
only from the Protestants but also from the Catholics. 
Their reasons for wishing to retain the German speech 
were different. Father Cazeaux found that French 
instruction in school and German speech at home re- 
sulted, in most instances, in a state of ignorance where 
neither language could be easily read by the common 
people who had been obliged to leave school early. 
He, therefore, came to "the sad conclusion that he 
who fights against the German speech is waging war, 
as it were, against the religion, the sense of right and 
wrong, and consequently the morals of Alsace." 

The Protestants stood more distinctly on the ground 
taken by Baum, who believed that the whole inner 
life of the Alsatians was bound up with their German 
speech. Without this they could no longer pray or 
sing, or laugh or weep as heretofore, but would have 
to become a race of untrustworthy slaves. 

Through 250 years the vast majority of the people 
of Alsace-Lorraine had kept their German speech in 
spite of oppression, in spite of the inspiration of the 
revolution, and later again in spite of a more system- 
atic and offensive oppression. Then there came 1871. 
The country, except Toul, Verdun, Belfort, and their 



86 Germany's Point of View 

surrounding territories, returned to the empire, from 
which it had been " fraudulently snatched away " by 
Louis XIV. Forty-three years have passed. The coun- 
try has its own constitution, which grants it a local 
Diet, while it has almost full representation in both 
the Reichstag and the Bundesrat. Its anti-German del- 
egation has dwindled from fifteen representatives to 
two, its emigration is negligible, thousands of its sons 
have taken office under the civil service of the coun- 
try, and when this war broke out the vote of German 
patriotic loyalty was almost universal. 

The country is among the most beautiful of Europe, 
so that the French love to refer to it as '' le beau 
jardin/' The people who largely inhabit it are a hard- 
working race, German to the core, peaceful, impatient 
of change, and, as a peasant said to an American vis- 
itor two summers ago, "perfectly content to be and 
to remain German." 



CHAPTER VII 



ALSACE-LORRAINE 



ALSACE-LORRAINE enjoys today, under its 
new constitution, manhood suffrage and the 
secret ballot. The second chamber of the Alsatian 
Diet, so elected, chooses its own speaker. The pres- 
ent speaker is Dr. Ricklin, who has been additionally 
honored by the electors as one of the fifteen repre- 
sentatives from Alsace-Lorraine to the German 
Reichstag. Having been prevented by ill health from 
attending the session of the Reichstag on August 4 of 
this year, he addressed a letter to the speaker of the 
Reichstag, which, translated, reads as follows : 

Dear Mr. Speaker — Please excuse my absence from the 
Reichstag. I started for Berlin Sunday night, August 
2, but was taken ill suddenly and had to return to Cars- 
pach-Sonnenberg. I regret my absence from the Reich- 
stag very much because I should have liked to take the 
opportunity of expressing there in the name of my con- 
stituents my regret and deep sorrow at the political diffi- 
culties which have arisen. The idea of war between Ger- 
many and France is so terrible and awful for us people 
in Alsace-Lorraine that we hardly dare to think of it. 
We do not want a war between Germany and France at 
any cost, certainly not for the sake of altering our political 
position. People who have spread a different view among 
the French and have thereby fanned the French thoughts 
of war are traitors to our people and have drawn upon 
them the curses of thousands of Alsace-Lorraine people, 
fathers, mothers, and wives, who with bleeding hearts 
must see their sons and husbands go into the most ter- 
rible of all wars. 

To the last we hoped that we might be spared the 

87 



88 Germany's Point of View 

terrors of a war between Germany and France, and even 
now our people refuse to give up hope. If, however, God 
has decreed differently, well — then the Alsace-Lorraine 
people too will do their whole duty and they will do it 
without a single reservation. 

The rules of the Reichstag do not permit a representa- 
tive to vote by mail, but I have the right to inform you, 
Mr. Speaker, that I should have voted, if I had been 
present, in favor of all the bills which the present state 
of affairs demanded, including the bill granting the neces- 
sary funds for carrying on the war. 

You have the right, Mr. Speaker, to make any use you 
choose of this letter. With the expression of great re- 
spect I am very sincerely yours, 

(Signed) Dr. Ricklin; 

Member of the Reichstag. 

Professor Lichtenberger, taking exception to the 
author's previous remarks, stated in the Transcript 
of November 21, 1914, that Alsace had risen "on 
the eve of the v^ar in a movement of solemn, unani- 
mous protest against the violence v^hich had been 
done her by annexation to Germany." He v^as prob- 
ably not acquainted with Dr. Ricklin's letter and drew 
his conclusions from reports published in France. 
In times of war every side is inclined to magnify the 
news favorable to its own contentions and to gener- 
alize from isolated occurrences. Since the last elec- 
tions to the Reichstag resulted in a delegation of 
thirteen representatives who proclaimed their alle- 
giance to the various German parties, and two rep- 
resentatives who proclaimed their French sympathies, 
it appears that the people were divided in their feelings 
for and against Germany at the ratio of thirteen to 
two. There can be little doubt that this small minority 
of French sympathizers created demonstrations in 
favor of the French on the eve of the war. One of 



Alsace-Lorraine 89 



the two representatives in the Reichstag, Mr. Wetterle, 
immediately went to Paris, where he issued a procla- 
mation, signing it " former representative in the Ger- 
man Reichstag." He was, of course, well received 
and may have carried to France the information 
which suggested to Professor Lichtenberger a general 
uprising in Alsace-Lorraine. 

Dr. Ricklin's letter, however, carries more weight 
than Mr. Wetterle's manifesto, not only because of 
his important position as speaker of the second cham- 
ber of the local Diet, but also beqause of the fact that 
he represents the group of thirteen in the Reichstag, 
while Mr. Wetterle represents the group of two. 

Professo;* Lichtenberger, however, was right when 
he spoke of such a tremendous movement on the eve 
of the war that it could be called a unanimous move- 
ment. But it was a patriotic uprising in favor of 
Germany, as is proved by countless letters, and best 
of all by the numbers of young men from Alsace- 
Lorraine who volunteered for the German Army. In 
gifts for the German soldiers at the front, the various 
Alsatian cities are vying with each other, while per- 
haps the most patriotic and most generous is the very 
city of Zabern, where the unfortunate affair between 
the military and the hoodlum element of the town 
took place last year. Nobody outside of Zabern 
excused the action of the officers. The townspeople 
themselves, however, who knew the conditions, the 
provocations, and most especially the general character 
of the officers, said much in their defence. Zabern 
was one of the first districts which elected a German 
friendly representative to the Reichstag and has gone 
on doing so ever since. 



90 Germany's Point of View 

This proves how dangerous it is — if one really 
cares to know the truth — to reason from exaggerated 
reports. Unless one had known the facts just men- 
tioned, one would have felt justified in believing that 
Zabern of all places was anti-German. As a matter 
of fact, it is exceedingly well satisfied with being 
German. 

One should also not forget that the Zabern inci- 
dent was the only one of its kind that has occurred. 
A weak and inefficient burgomaster, a troublesome 
hoodlum element, a vigorous anti-government propa- 
ganda carried on by a very small minority, and a 
young and overzealous officer — all combined to bring 
about an explosion which would have been much 
worse, most Germans believe, if the commander of the 
troops had not shown strength and common sense. 

The general disapproval, however, not only in Al- 
sace, but all over Germany, of such army regulations 
as made the clash possible proved how great the 
freedom of the press in Germany is. The German 
press is as free as that of America, and those editors 
who recently stated that articles like the one of Ber- 
nard Shaw in the New York Times would have 
landed their authors in jail in Germany were mis- 
taken. In times of war, Germany, of course, censors 
her newspapers just as the other belligerent coun- 
tries do, although in this particular war her censor- 
ship seems to be less rigorous than that of her op- 
ponents. In times of peace, however, the freedom 
of speech in Germany is limited only by the demands 
of decency. Scurrilous and slanderous attacks are 
forbidden there as here, but everybody remembers 
the very vigorous criticism of the emperor himself, a 



Alsace-Lorraine 91 



few years ago, when the people believed that he had 
spoken unwisely and had jeopardized the international 
policy of the empire, for the conduct of which the 
chancellor is the responsible minister. 

Bernard Shaw is no lover of Germany, but his 
nimble wit has found the chinks in the armor of the 
present British Government, and with keen satire he 
has demolished the arguments by which some British 
statesmen have presented Germany or Prussia or the 
Kaiser as arch fiends. This has made him persona 
non grata in many circles, for the more ardent anti- 
Germans apparently feel that the Germans must be 
either fiends or angels. If they were angels, the 
Allies would have to be in the wrong, and since this 
appears to be incredible to those whose sympathies 
are with the English, or the French, or the Russians, 
or the Japanese, or the Hindus, or the Zouaves, or the 
colored troops from Africa, or the Servians, they feel 
uneasy in the face of any argument which presents 
the Germans to them as very human. It is, however, 
conceivable that the Germans are not so bad as they 
have been painted, although they yet must bear their 
share of guilt in the present war. It takes two to 
make a quarrel, and the fact is that Germany today 
finds herself at war with her neighbors. 

The first accusations were launched against Ger- 
many as a whole, but when it was found that Germany 
had made a pretty good name for herself through two 
generations, the charges were laid at the door of the 
Emperor. Unfortunately for the accusers, Germany 
and its Emperor were found to be inseparable, and 
the mature judgment of the Emperor expressed as 
recently as in June, 19 13, by such prominent men as 



92 Germany's Point of View 

Ex-President Taft, the Duke of Argyle, Sir Gilbert 
Parker, and many others, presented an entirely dif- 
ferent picture of William ii than seemed compatible 
with the notion that he was an arch-enemy of 
mankind. 

Mr. Taft said: 

The truth of history requires the verdict that, consid- 
ering the critically important part which has been his 
among the nations, he (the German Emperor) has been, 
for the last quarter of a century, the greatest single indi- 
vidual force in the practical maintenance of peace in 
the world. 

The Duke of Argyle said: 

The German Emperor's life has been worthy of his 
father and of his mother, and no higher praise can be 
rendered in grateful acknowledgment of a great career 
— great with the abounding blessing of peace, duty done 
for his people, and his justice to his neighbors. 

This generation of Germans have good reason to be 
proud and to love their patriotic emperor. 

Sir Gilbert Parker said : 

The greatest praise that I can offer concerning Emperor 
William ii is that he would have made as good a king of 
England as our history has provided, and as good a Presi- 
dent of the United States as any since George Washington. 

It was said of Emperor William that he was medieval 
in his war spirit, but he has proved himself to be a modern 
keeper of the peace. 

When it was found that also the Emperor could 
not for long be painted as a fiend, Prussia was redis- 
covered. Hand on your heart, reader, just where and 
what is Prussia? Prussia extends from Koenigsberg 
to the Rhine, from the sea to the beautiful hills in 
central Germany. Are the cheerful inhabitants of 



Alsace-Lorraine 93 



Cologne, or the poetic dwellers on the banks of the 
Rhine, the Saale, and the Elbe, or the rugged men 
in whose Silesian mountain huts the traveler finds 
an always cheerful welcome, or the people of Pome- 
rania, who cling with tender love to their less fertile 
fields — are these the fiends who have brought about 
this war ? And if they are not the guilty people, then 
where are they? Where is this terrible Prussia that 
has terrorized Germany, although it had only seven- 
teen out of the sixty-one votes in the Bundesrat, and 
not more than its proper quota of representatives in 
the Reichstag? 

But, it is said, it was not Prussia as such, but the 
Prussian spirit which has undermined the fine German 
character. If this is so, it is strange that no notice of 
it reached the outer world until after the outbreak of 
the war. Searchers after the truth will find that also 
this charge against Prussia will have to be abandoned, 
because it was only made in the hope of catching the 
thoughtless. Until recently Russia had a rather 
ominous sound as the name of a country where free- 
dom could not live. Prussia sounds somewhat like 
Russia, and the similarity of sound, it was hoped, 
would suggest hostile thoughts to the American mind. 
An interesting insight into the general lack of famil- 
iarity with Prussia, its name, location, and tendencies, 
is given by the last publications of an American mag- 
azine, which prints its statistics of the naval losses 
in this war consistently thus : British, German, French, 
Prussian, Austrian. 

This reminds one of Heine's famous story. Asked 
what he thought of Mr. B., he replied that he did 
not know him, but that he hated him because he 



94 Germany's Point of View 

reminded him of Mr. C. Asked what his objection 
was to Mr. C, Heine repHed that he did not know 
Mr. C. either, but that he fancied he would dislike 
him if he should know him. The more frequently 
people hear Prussia accused as barbarous and auto- 
cratic, the more readily they will believe that they 
would hate her if they knew her. It is, therefore, 
not difficult to see why the name of Prussia has 
recently appeared in European despatches, when in 
reality this kingdom has been sunk since 1871 into 
the German Empire, so far as its foreign relations are 
concerned. It is as if the name of the State of New 
York were to supplant the term United States when- 
ever the character, the tendencies, or the motives of 
the American people were discussed. 

The attacks on Treitschke, the historian, and 
Nietzsche, the philosopher, who are accused of being 
at the bottom of the European war, will refute them- 
selves when people read the writings of these men 
and are not satisfied with unconnected excerpts. 
Treitschke * wrote before the first Hague Conference, 
and it can be, stated without fear of contradiction 
that he took a higher moral ground in his essays on 
international law than had been taken by any of his 
contemporaries anywhere. 

As to Nietzsche, this delightful contretemps hap- 
pened, that while the official British Press Bureau was 
sending out copious notices intending to prove that 
the immoral teachings of Nietzsche had corrupted 
the whole of Germany, the French Government sent 
to Harvard as exchange professor Professor Lichten- 
berger with the avowed purpose of preaching to 

* See President Hadley on Treitschke in the Yale Review. 



Alsace-Lorraine 95 



America the high ethical values of this same — 
Nietzsche ! 

Such glaring inconsistencies — to use a long and 
gentle word — of the official British Press Bureau will 
tend to lessen American belief in the trustworthiness 
of the British publications, especially since several 
American papers have discovered ways and means of 
obtaining at least some reports from their own cor- 
respondents. Accounts like those of Irvin Cobb, 
James O'Donnell Bennett, Ray Beveridge, Colonel 
Emerson, and Halliday Witherspoon, present true 
pictures of the war and of the real Germany. As a 
result the circle of people eager or willing to believe 
the worst of Germany is growing smaller every day, 
while the papers that refuse to print any news, except 
what is pro-Allies, are fast disappearing. 

None of these American newspapers, however, were 
as unfairly partisan, even at the height of the season, 
as the press in some other neutral countries has been. 
Let the pro-Germans glance at the Greek or Spanish 
papers, and they will turn to the American editors 
with thanks and congratulation ; for not one of them 
has stooped so low as these other editors have done. 
But even the German papers are not free from exag- 
geration and misrepresentation. Papers live on news, 
and when good, clean, and true news is not to be had, 
they must subsist on husks — not from preference, 
but from necessity. 

It is a far cry from this excitable newspaper liter- 
ature of today to the first joyous but restrained tones 
of German literature, uttered in the ninth century in 
a corner of Alsace. The old monastery tower is still 
standing, In a beautiful garden of Weisenburg, where 



96 Germany's Point of View 

Ot fried, the monk, wrote his Evangelienbuch, which he 
presented to Emperor Louis The German in 865. It 
was one of the first books written in German, and 
contains these v/ords: "Why should I not use the 
vernacular? German is not a language constructed 
by rule, but it is surely not lacking in terseness and 
beautiful simplicity." Practically no books are extant 
by any of Otfried's contemporaries and immediate 
successors in Alsace. Several names are recorded, 
but none deserve mention before Gottfried von Strass- 
burg in the early thirteenth century, whose Tristan 
and Isolde is known wherever there is the least inter- 
est in German literature. 

A hundred years later Alsace gave to the world the 
great mystic meister, Eckhart, and his even greater 
pupil, Johannes Tauler. The latter preached that 
work was the crowning glory of life, and the surest 
way to social peace. In addition to this, however, man 
should commune with God and steep his soul in God's 
eternity, ''just as a drop of water is lost in a bumper 
of good wine. And if such a man were drawn into 
the depths of hell, heaven and eternal happiness would 
have to be even in hell." 

After another hundred years the greatest master of 
the German tongue was once more a son of Alsace, 
Sebastian Brant. He too was a teacher of ethical 
values, but he preferred the humorous satire to the 
sermon. His great book is called Das Narrenschijf, 
"The Ship of Fools," in which the foibles of all walks 
and ranks of life are cleverly derided. Beginning 
with himself, a collector of books, he passes in review 
students, princes, peasants, society ladies, ill-tempered 
wives, artisans, merchants, and others. All are shown 



Alsace-Lorraine 97 



their special weaknesses, which make them ridiculous. 
Unless they put them aside, Brant promises to give 
them the bells and the cap of a fool. 

Brant's enormous popularity was due to the fact 
that a great preacher, Johannes Geiler, made the sev- 
eral chapters of this book the texts of his sermons. 
The preachers at that time were the most important 
men, and, of all, Thomas Murner of Strassburg was 
perhaps the greatest. He was the first one to translate 
Virgil's ^neid into German. It was published in 
the early sixteenth century. Murner himself was an 
opponent of Luther, while his fellow Alsatians to a 
very large extent embraced the teachings of the 
Reformation. 

After the Reformation all the great writers, and 
especially the poets of Alsace, were Protestants. There 
was the novelist, Jorg Wickram, who wrote the His- 
tory of Two Burning Love Affairs (about 1550), and 
Johannes Fischart, who has been called the Luther 
of the second half of the sixteenth century. As in 
the case of many writers of this period, the titles of 
Fischart's books are characteristic of the man. One 
was Serious Words to My Beloved Germans, and an- 
other The Grandmother of Common Sense. In this 
book he tried to do for the Germans what Franklin 
did for the Americans in the Poor Richard^ s Alma- 
nack 200 years later. Farmers' almanacs were known 
even then, and because Fischart believed that their 
foolish prophecies tended to fortify the ignorant in 
their superstitions he substituted, with fine satire, 
even more foolish prophecies, such as these : " In this 
month water will be more plentiful than wine," or 
" In this year all children will be born naked." 



98 Germany's Point of View 

Plutarch's Morals, and the writings of Seneca and 
many other classic authors, were translated into Ger- 
man by Alsatian scholars during this and the seven- 
teenth century. On the whole, however, these cen- 
turies were in Alsace, as elsewhere in Germany, poor 
periods for literature. Unlike the rest of Germany, 
however, Alsace resolutely refused to accept the teach- 
ings of the foreign, notably the French, literary 
schools. The Alsatians were Germans, and wished to 
remain so in everything and most especially in their 
speech. And why not? for, said Michael Moscher- 
osch, " is there an animal so foolish that it would 
change its voice to please another? Have you ever 
heard the cat bark to please the dog, or the cat moo, 
or the cow bray, or the donkey neigh ? " Then why 
should an Alsatian speak French, or be French to 
please his new^ masters? 

Without practically a single exception all the Alsa- 
tian writers continued to write in German, and to 
address themselves to the people at large, and not only, 
as was done elsewhere, to the more highly cultured 
classes. The result was often somewhat uncouth, as 
for instance, Messerschmid's The Donkey's Nobility 
and the Sow's Triumph, but it served to keep alive in 
the people their intense love of everything German, 
and their hatred of French manners and speech. 

The more cultured classes gradually formed a Ger- 
man literary circle in Strassburg which is well known 
through the enjoyment and profit it gave to Goethe 
in 1770. 

Then there followed the French Revolution, after 
which a distinctly French influence began to trans- 
form the country into a French province rather than 



Alsace-Lorraine 99 



a German land. The peasant class, however, the back- 
bone of every State, remained then, as it is today, 
thoroughly German. Nor is this remarkable, for the 
German generally loves his past, and it pleases him 
to think of his ancestors. He worships the places they 
used to frequent, and to his ear no language, not even 
the most courtly, sounds quite as beautiful as the one 
his fathers used to speak. 

Professor Lichtenberger is a guest in this country, 
and since he has expressed his apprehension lest the 
quotations from his book, cited in a previous chapter, 
convey the impression that he shares the German 
point of view, it is due to him to declare that this is 
not the case. It was expressly stated that views like 
his, aiming at a " double culture " for Alsace-Lorraine, 
amounted, "politically speaking, to a French propa- 
ganda," and were generally " classed with the aims of 
the more outspoken French sympathizers." His book, 
however, is written in such a fine spirit, so devoid of 
all political claptrap and bitterness, and so obviously 
desirous of suggesting a solution of a difficult prob- 
lem, that even the supporters of the German side of 
the case should read it. In addition, he states more 
than once that Alsace-Lorraine had been fraudulently 
taken away from Germany by Louis xiv, and thus 
admits the fact which is the cornerstone of Germany's 
contention. This is the more gratifying, as other 
French writers have tried to twist the meaning of the 
treaty of Westphalia in their endeavor to justify the 
theft of King Louis. A notable instance of such a 
perversion of the historical facts is found in M. A. 
Legrelle's book, Louis xiv et Strasshurg, essai sur 
la politique de la France en Alsace d'apres des docu- 



100 Germany's Point of View 



ments officiels et inedits. While Professor Lichten- 
berger grants the facts, it would appear from his letter 
that he attaches little weight to the distinctly German 
origin of the Alsatians, and their love for their mother 
tongue. He reasons that in 1871 Alsace had been 
" firmly French, if not in the dialect which the peas- 
ants spoke, at least in its general culture and its na- 
tional feelings." This statement does not seem to be 
borne out by the fact that only 160,000, out of about 
1,500,000 people, preferred French to German'citizen- 
ship when they were given the opportunity of choosing 
between them, before Germany introduced her gov- 
ernment. 

But if the statement is accepted as correct, and 
if it is granted that Alsace-Lorraine should have been 
permitted to remain French in 1871 because its "na- 
tional feelings were French," then by this very same 
argument Alsace-Lorraine should today be permitted 
to remain German ; for, by its elections to the Reichs- 
tag, by its patriotic response to the call of the empire, 
and by the attitude of its people, it has shown that 
whatever its national feelings were in 187 1, today they 
are overwhelmingly and distinctly German. 



CHAPTER VIII 

ENGLISH AND FRENCH VOICES — GERMAN VICTORIES 

THE editor of the London Daily News wrote on 
August I, 1914: 

The greatest calamity in history is upon us — a calamity 
so vast that our senses are numbed with horror. We 
hardly dare to look into the pit that yawns at our feet 
and yet any hour, any minute, may plunge us in beyond 
all hope of return. At this moment our fate is being 
sealed by hands that we know not, by motives alien to our 
interests, by influences that if we knew we should cer- 
tainly repudiate. Every step at this hour may be irrevo- 
cable. The avalanche trembles on the brink and a touch 
may send it shattering into the abyss. The peace of every 
land, the happiness of every home in Europe, the very 
bread by which we live, hang at this moment upon the 
will of one man, the czar of Russia. 

The world has been made to believe that Germany 
began this war, that the German Emperor started it, 
that Great Britain went into it with the sole purpose 
of protecting Belgian neutrality and of upholding the 
sanctity of treaties. She has done neither. Instead 
of rushing troops and landing marines, and joining 
France in turning the battles from Belgian soil, she, a 
nation of over forty million people sent for several 
months less than one-half of one per cent of her popu- 
lation to fight. Belgium, with a population of less than 
one-seventh that of Great Britain, put more than twice 
as many soldiers in the field as her powerful ally, and 
has largely continued to fight the British battles. Nous 

lOI 



I02 Germany's Point of View 



sommes trahis ( "we have been betrayed" ) was Cle- 
menceau's cry a few weeks after the outbreak of the 
war, and soon after another Frenchman sent this letter 
to the Morning Post: 

The French press is quoting an article from your paper 
in which you say that England must make exertions 
worthy of its cause and the exertions of its Allies ! May 
I assure you that the great majority of the French people 
are saying the same thing every day? France is living 
only for the war. Her people, her money, her industry 
have been placed in the service of the war. Our factories 
are closed, our commerce has stopped. We have only 
one thought, namely, that our 2,600,000 men strike Ger- 
many to the ground. What has England done? She 
has sent us 200,000 men, and has — issued a call to her 
sons ! The English contingent fighting on the Continent 
does not even represent half of the Frenchmen who are 
already " hors de combat." Your appeal for recruits 
has achieved that up to now 600,000 able-bodied men out 
of a population of 40,000,000 have deemed it worth their 
while to risk their lives on the battlefield — while the fate 
of your country is in the balance ! . . . Your papers de- 
clare daily in eloquent articles that England will fight 
one, two, three and if necessary twenty years, and raise 
one two, even three million soldiers. ... If you can raise 
them do so at once in the interest of your own country. 

The writer then continued to show that the defeat of 
the Allies would be more disastrous for England than 
for France, for the British fleet alone would be unable 
to prevent Germany from getting supplies through the 
countries of her neighbors. The real war could not last 
longer than a year, and if the Allies were beaten, 
England alone, without France and Russia, would be 
unable to continue it (in spite of Mr. Lloyd George's 
silver bullets). In order to prevent defeat, England 
would have to make sacrifices. It was wrong that the 
English clerks should remain at their desks, and the 



English and French Voices 103 

English farmers in their fields, and that English mer- 
chants should be engaged in capturing German trade. 
It was wrong that the English theaters and music halls 
were kept open, while all Frenchmen between the ages 
of nineteen and forty-eight were at the front. The 
letter closed with these words : " I repeat, if our men 
are on the firing line, why not yours?" 

No amount of censorship will, for long, keep from 
the world such cries for help. And when the world will 
know how poorly Great Britain at first championed 
the cause of poor little Belgium and of gallant France, 
neither of whom would have risked their all in war 
if it had not been for the promises of Sir Edward 
Grey, it will be more ready to listen to the voices 
raised in England against the war, before Sir Edward 
Grey and Mr. Asquith wrote two catchwords on their 
banner : " Belgian neutrality and the sanctity of 
treaties." 

Belgian neutrality ! This Sir Edward Grey has 
himself dropped from his promised guarantee for 
future years. (See the British Blue Book No. 155 
and the discussion in the New York Times, November 
I, 1914). 

The sanctity of treaties ! If Sir Edward Grey hon- 
estly believed that the treaty of 1839 was valid, it 
imposed upon Great Britain the duty of protecting 
Belgian neutrality. Did she protect it? She did not. 
Was she prepared to do so, or was she not rather 
like the man of little money who undertakes to guar- 
antee a note of a million dollars, wdiich he knows he 
cannot meet? 

Belgian neutrality, sanctity of treaties, German mili- 
tarism, Prussian aggressiveness — .all these were ex- 



104 Germany's Point of View 

cuses, for the London Daily News, August i, 19 14, 
was right when it said : 

At St. Petersburg, there sits the man who has every 
one of these hves and milHons more at his mercy, and 
who at one word can let hell loose upon the face of 
Europe. Is he a man we can trust with this momentous 
power? He who decorates his black hundreds on the 
morrow of their massacres and holds half Europe in the 
grip of a medieval despotism — is he the man whom the 
free peoples of France and England can trust with their 
destiny? Is he the man for whom we are going to shed 
our blood and our treasure? Is Russia the type of civili- 
zation that we are prepared to bleed ourselves white to 
make triumphant over Europe and Asia? 

The question is for us. For though the Czar has his 
hand on the avalanche, it is we who have our hand on 
him. It is we who in the last analysis must say whether 
Europe is to be deluged with blood. Do you doubt it? 
Turn to your paper this (Friday) morning. There you 
will see a message from St, Petersburg signed by Renter. 
It begins : 

The situation shows, so far, no change in the direc- 
tion of peace. The sailing of the British fleet from 
Portland has created an immense impression and, coupled 
with Japan's assurances, has more than confirmed 
Russia's determination to stand to her guns. 

In that flash we see the situation. We see the Czar 
with his hand on the avalanche looking toward England 
for the one assurance that he needs. Let England say, 
" No, you touch it at your own risk and your own peril," 
and his hand will drop. Let England falter, temporize, 
equivocate, and he will plunge us into ruin with the rest. 

We are told that we must be quiet, that we may encour- 
age Germany by making her believe that she has not to 
reckon with us. But the move is not with Germany. The 
move is with Russia. It is she whom we encourage or 
discourage by every word that is said and every action that 
is done. It is she who has the issues of war and peace 
in her hands. It is she whom the sailing of our fleet 
from Portland has *' confirmed in her determination to 
stand by her guns." Quiet? But who is keeping the 



English and French Voices 105 

Times and the Daily Mail and the rest of these papers 
which by years of anti-German propaganda have been 
paving the way to this stupendous catastrophe — who is 
keeping them quiet? Nay, who is inspiring them? Who 
is authorizing them to tell Russia that she may start the 
avalanche with the assurance that we shall be in the 
abyss with her ? They talk of our " obligations to our 
friends." We have no obligations except the obligation 
to preserve this country from any share in the crime that 
threatens to overwhelm Europe. Again and again we 
have had the assurance of the prime minister and Sir 
Edward Grey that we. are free agents, that our hands are 
not tied. If that is so, why are these mischievous declara- 
tions about our complicity allowed to pass ? Every one 
of them is a new incitement to Russia, a fresh match 
applied to the powder magazine of Europe. They are 
reproduced in Russia to feed the flame of popular pas- 
sion and to nerve the Czar to the fatal act. 

If we are free — and we know we are ' free — what 
ground is there for involving ourselves in this unspeakable 
calamity? On the immediate cause of the quarrel we 
can have no sympathy with Servia. The assassination 
of the Crown Prince and his wife was a brutal and cold- 
blooded crime, the fruit of a conspiracy laid with infinite 
care and deliberation and wholly inspired by Servia. It 
was a plot so complete, so official, as it were, that there 
was no possibility of the victims escaping. They were 
literally enveloped by death from the moment they entered 
Serajevo. The crime was only the culmination of a long 
train of events, all of which aimed at raising rebellion 
among the Slavs of Austria-Hungary, and its immediate 
purpose was to destroy the one life which seemed neces- 
sary to save Austria from disruption on the old emperor's 
death. We need not attempt to justify the terms of the 
ultimatum ; but no one denies the provocation, no one sug- 
gests that if the two countries could be isolated Austria 
would not be justified in exacting severe terms from the 
criminal. 

If, then, we have neither sympathy with Servia in the 
quarrel, nor a traditional interest in the aims of her 
master in the Balkans, why should we go to war? Is 
it because we wish the Russian civilization to overwhelm 
the German civilization? There is not a thinking being 
in this land who, competent to form a judgment, would 



io6 Germany's Point of View 

not repudiate such a monstrous thought. If we crush 
Germany in the dust and make Russia the dictator of 
Europe and Asia it will be the greatest disaster that has 
ever befallen Western culture and civilization. It will 
be a reaction to barbarism — the triumph of blind super- 
stition over the most enlightened intellectual life of the 
modern world. 

And if it is a question of political supremacy, of that 
vague gibberish that is talked about " the balance of 
power," can we doubt where our interest lies? For years, 
under the industrious propaganda of Lord Northcliffe, 
Mr. Strackey, Mr. Maxse and the militarists, this country 
has been preached into an anti- German frame of mind 
that takes no account of facts. Where in the wide world 
do our interests clash with those of Germany ? Nowhere. 
With Russia we have potential conflicts over the whole of 
southeastern Europe and southern Asia. 

We are told that the day of our " splendid isolation " 
is over — that we must have " friends," and therefore 
enemies. It is false. Its falsity is proved by the very 
situation with which we are faced. It is because Eng- 
land is free that Europe hesitates. It is our neutrality 
which is the only protection that Europe has against the 
hideous ruin and combustion on the brink of which it 
trembles. Let us announce that neutrality to the world. 
It is the one hope. There is no other. Let us make it 
clear that unless and until British interests are attacked, 
we will have no part in this world-insanity, that we will 
not shed a drop of English blood for Czar or Servia, 
that our one obligation is the interests and peace of this 
land, and that we refuse to recognize any other. We 
can save Europe from war even at this last moment. But 
we can only save it by telling the Czar that he must 
fight his own battles and take the consequences of his 
own action. 

If the British Government does this, it will do the 
greatest service to humanity in history. If it does not 
do it, it will have brought the greatest curse to humanity 
in history. The youngest of us will not live to see the 
end of its crime. 

The British Government did not do this ; for, even 
if it had wished to listen to this impassioned appeal, 



English and French Voices 107 

it was too late. As we now know from the letter of 
the Belgian diplomat in St. Petersburg (see Chapter 
One), and can infer from the despatches of Sir Ren- 
nell Rodd from Rome (see New York Times, Novem- 
ber I, 19 14), the British support had been promised 
in St. Petersburg during the early morning hours of 
July 30. A few days later, on August 2, that is before 
the German troops had marched into Belgium, Sir 
Edward Grey assured France of his support, nor was 
this promise made conditional on a German infringe- 
ment of Belgian neutrality. (See also the discussion 
of the French Yellow Book, Chapters xvii to xix). 

The world-war ensued. Germany and Austria- 
Hungary matched against a potential strength that 
outnumbers them at a ratio of more than seven to 
one, while their combined area, on the resources of 
which they can draw, is outnumbered at a ratio of 
probably more than thirty to one ! 

The editor of a Boston paper, which prints all avail- 
able news and feels not called upon to separate the 
chaff from the nuggets of truth, said as early as No- 
vember, 1914: "Germany is winning all along the line." 
And he was right. Fortune may change and the 
changes of war may hereafter favor the Allies. The 
Germans may lose what they have won, but for the 
present it is a fact that they are gaining all along the 
line. 

Readers of the papers, who have seen perhaps 
ninety items or more of news favorable to the Allies 
to the few accounts of German victories, must remem- 
ber that it is not the number of small successes but 
the size of the few great successes which counts. 
There are, however, in the American newspaper of- 



io8 Germany's Point of View 

fices exceedingly few men who know Europe so well 
that they are able to judge from the cabled accounts 
whether the capture of a certain position or city is 
important or not. The most notable exception to this 
rule is Anthony Arnoux, whose marvelously lucid dis- 
cussions of the daily despatches are appearing in the 
Boston Journal. 

Let the reader take from his bookshelf any ordinary 
school geography, turn to the map of France, and lay 
by its side the published maps of the positions of the 
hostile western armies. Then let him ask himself a 
few simple questions such as these : 

Where are the French coal mines? They are held 
by the Germans. 

Where are the French iron mines? They are held 
by the Germans. 

Where are the other French mineral mines? They 
are held by the Germans. 

Where are the French industrial centers? Where 
are the great cotton mills, or the iron works? Where 
are most of the gun factories? They are all held by the 
Germans. 

When this is realized, the vastness of the German 
successes in France will be understood. The tremen- 
dous onslaught early in September, and the subsequent 
clever retreat, will be appreciated as one of the most 
remarkable military feats ever executed. At this dis- 
tance it is impossible to know whether the Germans 
ever intended to continue their victorious march on 
Paris. It is more than likely that this was not their 
intention. 

In the meanwhile, the German troops maintain their 



English and French Voices 109 

hold on all the necessities of France, her mines and 
centers of industries, and are slowly forging ahead in 
the north toward the Channel coast. Occasional re- 
verses here or there are immaterial ; the capture of a 
railway center, however, or a town commanding the 
approaches to good roads, is very important. 

All these military successes have been achieved in 
spite of the great numerical inferiority of the German 
troops. The reports from Sir John French often 
mention superior numbers of the enemy. If these 
reports are accurate, they can have reference only to 
comparatively small contingents, for on the whole 
battle line of the West the Germans are probably out- 
numbered at the ratio of three to two. 

In the East they are outnumbered to an even greater 
extent; perhaps even at the rate of two to one. But 
here also the successes at arms have been enormous. 
In two great battles, those of Tannenberg and Allen- 
stein, the field marshal, von Hindenburg, has anni- 
hilated one entire Russian army of five army corps, 
and half destroyed another army. The loss of men 
can easily be repaired by Russia, for her supply of 
men is practically inexhaustible. The loss of officers 
is more serious, and the loss of guns and ammunition 
is a calamity for Russia. She has only one small gun 
factory, and until her northern harbors thaw out she 
will be unable to replenish her stock of guns and 
cannon. 

Over and above all this, the incontrovertible fact 
remains that for months Germany has not been obliged 
to support her armies, either of the West or of the 
East, on her own territory. She buys her supplies for 
cash. or gives her receipt in the hostile countries, and 



no Germany's Point of View 

is enabled to save her own comparatively meager 
resources. This is of the greatest importance, be- 
cause the Allies have begun a systematic campaign of 
starving out Germany. Great Britain has broken all 
laws of warfare on sea by preventing any foodstuffs 
from entering Germany, either directly or by the way 
of neutral countries. She has even taken German 
citizens from neutral ships and detained them as 
prisoners of war. 

Under these conditions Germany is compelled to 
maintain her army in the territory of her enemies, 
who, in their turn, of course, are at liberty to consume 
the food which they and their Allies will not permit 
to enter into Germany. 

The German successes on the sea are too well 
known to deserve repetition. Ton by ton and man 
by man, Germany has triumphed over Great Britain, 
and when the small size of her navy is considered 
her victories thus far grow to fabulous proportions. 

It would be more than foolish to assert that Ger- 
many will be able always to press her advantages thus 
far gained, and that she will meet with no serious 
reverses in the future. But it would be equally foolish 
to deny that up to date Germany has won military 
successes greatly in excess of the most sanguine expec- 
tations of those who knew the enormous odds against 
her. 

But, oh, the sacrifices she has brought on the altar 
of the Fatherland! Tears and sorrow in every fam- 
ily ! In one single family, that of von Konig, five 
brothers have laid down their lives for their country. 
The victories have been dearly won. 

But Germany is not the only country where sorrow 



English and French Voices iii 

reigns. In the French letter quoted above, the state- 
ment is made that there is not a single French family 
without mourning. The sufferings of Belgium and 
Poland are known to all. Russia, Austria, and all the 
other countries have their share, and in Great Britain, 
too, the relatives of many who have gone to the war 
are mourning their dead. 

Men are often drawn together by a com^mon sor- 
row. As the shadows of death draw ever deeper 
over the whole of Europe, is it asking too much that 
enmity and jealousy, revenge and passion may leave 
the hearts of men, and that their thoughts be directed 
toward the blessings of peace? A peace which is won 
by the humiliation of one side or the other will carry, 
in its very nature, the germ of future hatred and 
war, but a peace which is born of a common sorrow 
and is the result of mutual good will may last, and 
will allow Europe, yes the whole world, to heal its 
wounds. 



CHAPTER IX 



ENGLISH MILITARISM, BELGIUM, AND ITALY 

IT HAS been stated by the friends of Great Britain 
that the AUies are fighting to put down miUtarism, 
and to cast out from the world the spirit of barbarous 
warfare. Lord Kitchener has been placed in charge 
of the British War Office, and has been eulogized 
both at home and abroad. The picture of this great 
general is, however, incomplete unless one remembers 
what his colleague, the first lord of the Admiralty, 
Winston Spencer Churchill, said of him. In his 
River War, page 211, Mr. Churchill said: 

From the Khalifa's house I repaired to the Mahdi's" 
tomb. The reader's mind is possibly familiar with its 
shape and architecture. It was much damaged by the 
shell fire. The apex of the conical dome had been cut 
off. One of the small cupolas was completely destroyed. 
The dome itself had one enormous and several smaller 
holes smashed in it; the bright sunlight streamed through 
these and displayed the interior. Everything was wrecked. 
Still it was possible to distinguish the painted brass rail- 
ings round the actual sarcophagus, and the stone beneath 
which the body presumably lay. This place had been for 
more than ten years the most sacred and holy thing that 
the people of the Soudan knew. Their miserable lives had 
perhaps been brightened, perhaps in some way ennobled, 
by the contemplation of something which they did not 
quite understand, but which they believed exerted a pro- 
tecting influence. It had gratified that instinctive desire 
for the mystic which all human creatures possess, and 
which is perhaps the strongest reason for believing in a 
progressive destiny and a future state. By Sir [now 
Lord] H. Kitchener's orders the tomb has been profaned 

112 



English Militarism, Belgium, and Italy 113 

and razed to the ground. The corpse of the Mahdi was 
dug up, the head was separated from the body and, to 
quote the official explanation, " preserved for future dis- 
posal " — a phrase which must in this case be understood 
to mean that it was passed from, hand to hand till it 
reached Cairo. Here it remained, an uninteresting 
trophy, until the affair came to the ears of Lord Cromer, 
who ordered it to be immediately reinterred at Wady 
Haifa. The limbs and trunk were flung into the Nile. 
Such was the chivalry of the conquerors ! ... if such 
conduct is to be characteristic of its [the British in Egypt] 
Government, then it would be better if Gordon had never 
given his life, nor Kitchener won his victories ! 

On page 378, Mr. Churchill continues : 

The stern and unpitying spirit of the commander was 
communicated to his troops, and the victories which marked 
the progress of the River War [April, 1896, to February, 
1899] were accompanied by acts of barbarity not always 
justified even by the harsh customs of savage conflicts. 

Another passage on page 445 may explain why 
those who have friends and relatives fighting on the 
German side have condemned the Allies for import- 
ing their African black troops into Europe. He says 
of a certain battle when Kitchener had decided to 
modify his cruel warfare: 

The Arabic word for quarter, '' Aman!" was explained 
to the British brigade. Of course in actual assault very 
few were spared. . . . Men do not come across the open 
and let themselves be shot at for nothing. The black 
soldiers were beyond regular control. 

By the side of this pen picture of Lord Kitchener, 
drawn by his colleague, in charge of the British navy, 
one should place the picture of Mr. Churchill himself, 
drawn by A. G. Gardiner in his delightful portrait gal- 
lery called Pillars of Society. This book, first pub- 



114 Germany's Point of View 

lished a year ago, and republished in January, 19 14, 
was reviewed in the Transcript on October 14 last. 
It is accessible to all readers, wherefore a few quo- 
tations may suffice: 

With his abnormal thirst for sensation, he combines 
an unusual melodramatic instinct. He is always uncon- 
sciously playing a part — an heroic part. . . . Hence that 
tendency to exaggerate a situation which is so character- 
istic of him. . . . Hence his horrific picture of the Ger- 
man menace. He believes it all because his mind once 
seized with an idea works with enormous velocity round 
it, intensifies it, enlarges it, makes it shadow the whole 
sky. In the theatre of his mind it is always the hour 
of fate and the crack of doom. . . . 

Behind all his actions, however sudden or headlong, 
there is the calculation of a singularly daring and far- 
sighted mind — a mind that surveys the field with the eye 
of the strategist, weighs the forces, estimates the posi- 
tions and, when the hour has come, strikes with deadly 
sureness at the vulnerable place. " Keep your eye on 
Churchill," should be the watchword of these days. Re- 
member, he is a soldier first, last, and always. He will 
write his name big on our future. Let us take care he 
does not write it in blood ! 

At about the same date in 19 13 when these words 
were written concerning one member of the present 
British Government, another member — Sir Edward 
Grey — held a conversation with the Belgian minister 
in which he touched upon a subject which is para- 
mount today, Belgian neutrality. Sir Edward has 
published in November, 19 14, through the press, a 
record of this conversation, which is exceedingly inter- 
esting from several points of view. First, he refers 
to the " apprehension in Belgium that England would 
be the first to violate Belgian neutrality." This 
proves what Germany has maintained, that it had been 
current gossip in Europe for some time that, in case 



English Militarism, Belgium, and Italy 115 

of a war, one or the other of the great powers would 
invade Belgium. In other words, the invasion of 
Belgium in this war did not come as a surprise. It 
had been anticipated in all quarters. 
Sir Edward then goes on to state, 

that he did not think this apprehension could have had its 
origin in any act of Great Britain, and he was sure that 
England would not be the first to violate the neutrality of 
Belgium. 

It would be interesting to know whether the Bel- 
gian minister had spoken of the danger threatening 
the preservation of the neutrality of his country from 
the military " conversations " between the Belgian au- 
thorities and the British war office through Lieutenant 
Colonel Barnardiston. These had placed England in 
the possession of the military secrets of Belgium. As 
long as the two countries were on good terms there 
was no danger. During the last ten or fifteen years, 
however, national friendships in Europe were not very 
stable, and in 19 13 Belgium apparently had begun to 
mistrust England. She felt so strongly on this point 
that she ordered her minister in London to communi- 
cate this apprehension to Sir Edward Grey. 

This is very important, because Germany's ex- 
pressed belief that France and Great Britain had made 
plans to enter Belgium has been brushed aside as a 
poor excuse, due to an insincere desire on her part to 
defend her own action. If, however, Belgium in 1913 
had heard enough rumors and received enough infor- 
mation, probably through her secret agents, to make 
her apprehensive lest " England would be the first to 
violate Belgium neutrality," the presumption is estab- 
lished . that Germany too was sincere when she said 



ii6 Germany's Point of View 

she believed that plans had been made by her oppo- 
nents to invade Belgium. 

The most important part, however, of Sir Edward's 
latest publication is contained in the last paragraph, 
which reads: 

For us to be the first to violate it and to send troops into 
Belgium would be to give Germany, for instance, justifica- 
tion for sending troops into Belgium. Also, what we de- 
sired, in the case of Belgium as in that of other neutral 
countries, was that their neutrality should be respected, and 
as long as it is not violated by any other power we should 
certainly not send troops ourselves into their territory. 

Let the reader re-read this paragraph carefully. It 
is divided into two parts. The first contemplates the 
possibility of England being " the first to violate " Bel- 
gian neutrality, and dismisses it as improbable because 
"it would give Germany, for instance, justification for 
sending troops into Belgium." There is not one word 
of horror at the very thought of England's being 
suspected of doing such a terrible thing as violating 
the neutrality of Belgium. In view of the attitude 
taken by the British Government in this war, one 
is astonished at not hearing Sir Edward Grey say: 
" Sir, your suspicion is an insult. The violation of 
Belgian neutrality would be a 'heinous crime,' and I 
am a gentleman." This is what a gentleman would 
say in private life if he were suspected of contem- 
plating an act which he holds to be criminally wrong 
and immoral. He would not defend himself against 
such an imputation by pointing out that it would be 
against his interests to commit the deed. 

The second part of the above paragraph is interest- 
ing because of the words " in the case of Belgium, as 



English Militarism, Belgium, and Italy 117 

in that of other neutral countries." They indicate that 
Sir Edward Grey, hke the other European statesmen, 
made no distinction, before August, 19 14, between the 
neutraUty of Belgium and that of other countries. 
This, too, has been a contention of Germany. 

In this connection, however, it is valuable to remem- 
ber, first, that Great Britain was the only one of the 
great Powers which has not ratified The Hague Con- 
vention concerning the rights and duties of neutral 
Powers in case of war on land; and, secondly, that, 
according to the standards of The Times itself, the 
military conversations between the Belgian general 
staff and the British War Office, through Lieutenant 
Colonel Barnardiston, constituted a breach of Belgian 
neutrality. 

This latest publication of Sir Edward Grey, there- 
fore, has proved the reasonableness of several German 
contentions. 

1. The possibility of an invasion of Belgium in case 
of war was current gossip in Europe for some time 
prior to 19 14. 

2. Rumors and secret information concerning a con- 
templated invasion of Belgium by England were so 
strong in 1913 that the Belgium Government felt 
obliged to discuss the matter with Sir Edward Grey. 

3. The thought of an English invasion of Belgium 
was not indignantly repudiated by Sir Edward Grey as 
impossible in 19 13, but gently denied by him as unwise. 

4. Sir Edward Grey, in 19 13, rated the neutrality 
of Belgium as of the same kind as that of other neu- 
tral states. 

5. The reputation of Great Britain for fair and hon- 



Ii8 Germany's Point of View 

orable dealings among her European neighbors was so 
slight in 19 1 3 that little Belgium felt herself more 
menaced by Great Britain than by any other power. 

Almost the same cable which brought the news of 
this remarkable communication from Sir Edward Grey 
announced a statement by the former Italian prime 
minister, Giovanni Giolitti, who thought it was neces- 
sary to emphasize that Italy always had been loyal to 
treaties, and in this connection added : 

I feel it my duty to recall a precedent showing how 
correct was the interpretation of the alliance by the 
Government when the conflict began. During the Balkan 
War, on August 9, 1913, being absent from Rome, I re- 
ceived the following telegram from the late Marquis de 
San Giuliano: "Austria has communicated with us and 
Germany that it has been the intention to act against 
Servia, defining such action as defensive and hoping for 
an application of the casus foederis (i. e., a case where 
the treaty between the three nations would come into 
force) by the Triple Alliance, which I consider inappli- 
cable. I am trying to agree with Germany concerning 
efforts to prevent Austrian action, but it may be necessary 
to say clearly that we do not consider such eventual action 
as defensive, and, therefore, do not think that there exists 
a casus foederis. Please send a telegram saying whether 
you approve." 

I answered: "If Austria goes against Servia, a casus 
foederis evidently does not exist. It is an action she accom- 
plishes on her own account. It is not defensive, because 
nobody thinks of attacking her. It is necessary to declare 
this to Austria in the most formal manner, hoping that 
Germany will act to dissuade Austria from a very danger- 
ous adventure." 

This was done, and our interpretation of the treaty was 
accepted by our allies, our friendly relations not being in 
the least disturbed. Thus the declaration of neutrality 
made at the beginning of the conflict is according to the 
spirit and the letter of the treaties. I recall this incident 
from a wish to demonstrate the complete loyalty of Italy 
before the eyes of Europe. 



English Militarism, Belgium, and Italy 119 

This statement has given rise to the following very 
natural deduction in the American press: 

The historic significance of Giolitti's disclosure is 
great, but not greater than its significance for the imme- 
diate future. Such a disclosure is not made by an ex- 
Premier in support of his successor's policy of armed 
neutrality if that neutrality is expected to be long con- 
tinued. Giolitti spoke directly against Germany and 
Austria, and Italy anticipates the completion of its military 
preparations by the i6th inst. 

This is, undoubtedly, the inference which the Eng- 
lish press bureau wished us to draw. The despatch 
is marked as " delayed in transmission," and was 
finally sent on the very day on which the report of the 
fall of Lodz, and of the victorious advance of the 
German troops toward Warsaw was received. The 
suggested entry of Italy into the war on the side of 
the Allies may have been meant to compensate friends 
for the Russian failure in Poland. 

In this connection it is very interesting to note that 
an earlier statement by Giovanni Giolitti was not for- 
warded by the British censor, or at least received no 
currency in the American press. In it Giolitti refers 
humorously to the offer of the Allies to give Italy 
Trent, Triest, and Dalmatia, and the offer of Count 
Andrassy to give Italy Nizza, Savoy, Corsica, and 
Malta, and says that neither of the generous donors 
has the gift he promises in his pocket. He concludes : 

No ; Italy is not wavering like Buridan's donkey between 
two bundles of hay. She does not want either the one or 
the other gift. We shall certainly not be guilty of deceit 
and disloyalty, nor attack our friends from behind. Not 
even a Machiavelli would have fallen, in his doctrine of 
the safety of the state, to such a depth of cynicism. The 
honor of a nation is of more worth than anything else. 



120 Germany's Point of View 

Men live not by bread alone, but also by dignity and honor. 
We do not know whether the Triple Alliance is still valu- 
able for us, but we cannot forget the benefits it has brought 
us through three decades. There are indications that our 
country is as little eager for a war against Austria as for 
a war in company with Austria. Possibly the Repub- 
licans and Nationalists may wish a war. We certainly 
do not. Our country as a whole does not want to have 
any kind of a war. It needs peace. One war, the Lybian 
War, was' quite enough for us. We do not know what 
victory might bring us, but we do know that defeat would 
mean the ruin of Italy. 

This sounds very different from the despatch trans- 
mitted, after some delay, by the British Press Bureau. 
Anybody familiar with Giolitti's style and his fond- 
ness for pithy phrases cannot help suspecting that his 
later remarks w^ere re-written and emasculated to 
serve a definite purpose. 

In view of his earlier statement, the last phrase 
cabled over from London gains in importance, and 
may convey a different meaning from the one which 
the friends of the Allies wished to give it. Giolitti is 
quoted as having said that he wished " to demonstrate 
the complete loyalty of Italy before the eyes of 
Europe." This can only mean loyalty to the friends, 
Germany and Austria, whose assistance had "brought 
benefits " to Italy through three decades. 

Nobody here can foretell the future, or know what 
Italy will do, but if one wishes to conclude from 
Giolitti's speech that Italy will "attack her friends 
from behind " and join the Allies, one is pre- 
mature. 

Contrary to the general understanding in America, 
Italian public opinion is by no means hostile to Ger- 
many. Austria has never been popular in Italy, while 



English Militarism, Belgium, and Italy 121 

the Italians individually have always maintained cor- 
dial feelings toward the other great Latin nation, the 
French. And who would not? The Germans them- 
selves would have liked nothing better than to be on 
good terms with France, from whom an unfortunate 
historical inheritance has kept them estranged. 

As regards England, unless all the ascertainable 
evidence is at fault, this nation is rather unpopular 
in Italy. Her dealings in Egypt, and her general 
policy in the Near East and Africa, that is, at the 
very door of Italy, have not won her an enviable 
reputation. 

Gratitude toward Germany, and dislike of Austria, 
on the one hand, are balanced by warm feelings for 
the French people, and distrust of England, on the 
other hand. The restless desire for war, moreover, 
of the anti-government parties is held in check by the 
wishes of the Government to be, as Giolitti puts it, 
** loyal to our friends, and to maintain the honor and 
dignity of the country." 

Much has been made of the disappointment felt, 
and, doubtless, often expressed, by many Germans 
early in this war at the refusal of Italy to join her 
allies of the Dreibund. People have entirely forgot- 
ten that for years the most thoughtful men of Ger- 
many have reckoned with just this possibility, that a 
war might take place, in which Italy would not join. 
Paul Rohrbach, iu that wonderful book, Der Deutsche 
Gedanke in der Welt, which the Macmillan Company 
have issued under the title German World Policies, 
said, in 1912, that in any estimate of Germany's 
strength in a future war, it would be unwise to include 
Italy, because Italian public opinion was uncertain, and 



122 Germany's Point of View 



it was not possible to drive the country into a war 
against its wishes. 

The incident,* moreover, to which GioHtti referred 
in his latest statement makes it perfectly clear that the 
German Government understood Italy's position. All 
talk, therefore, of any danger threatening Italy in the 
event of a German victory is wide of the mark. The 
German Government cannot, and the German people 
do not, harbor ideas of revenge toward Italy. The 
Germans as a whole are a friendly people, who wish 
to be on good terms with their fellowmen. If Ger- 
many should be successful in this struggle against 
odds such as have probably never before been en- 
countered by any nation, a large part of the people 
of this world will harbor no friendly thoughts toward 
her. A war of revenge against Italy could bring her 
nothing but the enmity also of the Italians. There 
would be absolutely nothing she could gain. 

For this reason, nobody, probably either in Ger- 
many or in Italy, considers the loose talk of revenge 
seriously. But since Italy has nothing to fear from 
a victorious Germany, if she remains neutral, she has 
no incentive whatever to run the risks of war on the 
side of the Allies. If the Allies should be success- 
ful, it seems incredible that they should wish to punish 
Italy for not having *' attacked her friends from 
behind," as Giolitti says. If, however, they should 
attempt to do this, America would purely not sit idly 
by and see Italy suffer for having kept her pledge, 
when the very fact that Germany was believed to have 



* For a full discussion of this incident see the British 
Annual Register for 1913, in which the whole credit for 
having averted a European war is given to Emperor William 11. 



English Militarism, Belgium, and Italy 123 

broken her treaty obligations has turned so many sin- 
cere and honest Americans into bitter enemies of 
Germany. 

This enmity at first was so severe that nobody, 
in the beginning, could have foretold the change of 
opinion which would, take place. The writer, in De- 
cember, 19 14, was in a district of northern Maine, 
where the population to a man seemed to favor Ger- 
many. The wonderfully gallant fight which Germany 
is making against almost incredible odds had taken 
hold of their imagination. They were not so much 
interested in the claims and counter-claims as to who 
began the war, for, with the hard common sense of 
country communities, they knew that it takes two to 
start a fight. Their general admiration, moreover, for 
the industry and personal worth of the Germans, which 
their newspapers had given them during the past 
twenty years, could not be suddenly superseded by the 
accounts in the same papers of the unspeakable bad- 
ness of the Germans. They preferred to believe the 
accumulative evidence of years rather than the pas- 
sionate appeals to hatred suddenly emanating from 
England. And, after all, these questions were far too 
complex to be interesting. The one interesting fact 
was that a comparatively small state dared to fight 
the Russian giant, and at the same time France, Bel- 
gium, and England, with Canada, Australia, India, 
Egypt, and South Africa, and, in addition, Japan; 
and not only fight them, but also hold them in check, 
and do so with a fair prospect of ultimate success. 

An additional point of interest in Giolitti's state- 
ment deserves attention. It seems that Austria's pa- 
tience with her troublesome neighbor, Servia, was 



124 Germany^ s Point of View 

almost exhausted as early as August 9, 19 13, but that 
Germany, at the request of Italy, was able to restrain 
her from taking a dangerous step. Only those who 
are familiar with the character of Servia — and, for- 
tunately, the report of the Balkan Commission of the 
Carnegie Peace Foundation supplies an impartial por- 
trayal of the wretched character of this state — can 
have any idea of what Austria has had to suffer, and, 
consequently, of how hard Germany had to work to 
restrain her. From Giolitti's own words, it aTppears 
that Austria felt that she would be merely defending 
herself if she should proceed against Servia. Thanks 
to Giolitti, the world now knows of a definite instance 
when Germany put a restraining hand on her ally, 
Austria. 

Some may feel that Germany should have done the 
same again in 19 14, but they forget the horror at the 
murder of the archduke and his v/ife, and the deter- 
mination of Austria that the hour had arrived when 
Servian plottings must cease, and that this was a case 
of life or death for Austria. 

Political murder, strangely enough, in the eyes of 
many good persons, is a shade less reprehensible than 
ordinary murder. They should, however, remember 
that the Servian assassins did not spare the Countess 
of Hohenberg, either. She was not of royal blood, 
and for her sake the archduke had been obliged to 
renounce the right of succession for his children. 
Think of these orphaned children, bereft at one stroke 
of both father and mother! And remember, further, 
that the archduke himself was not murdered because 
he was cruel or autocratic, or the tool of reaction- 
aries. On the contrary, he was murdered because 



English Militarism, Belgium, and Italy 125 

he was a strong and liberal man, under whose guidance 
it was assumed Austria would develop into a vigorous 
and thoroughly democratic state. 

If one considers all these facts, there is no reason 
to doubt the sincerity of the German chancellor, who 
said that Germany had advised forbearance to Aus- 
tria, so far as was compatible with her duties as a 
faithful ally. 

It is not often that the British censor passes so 
many despatches in one or two days which contain 
the very information with which to strengthen the 
German case. Some critics have found fault with the 
pro-German writers in this country because they no- 
where furnished absolutely complete proofs. The 
writers are very conscious of this defect, but it is 
not their fault that insufficient information is per- 
mitted to reach America. The best they can do is 
to call attention to individual facts, and to point out 
how these facts seem to dovetail together, and how 
they make the case of Germany, as they see it, 
probable. 



CHAPTER X 

IS THE ENGLISH NEWS OF BELGIUM RELIABLE? 

THE Berne Daily News of November 19, 1914, 
contained this item: 

The German civil administration is entering into per- 
sonal negotiations with the most prominent Belgian manu- 
facturers with a view to the speedy resumption of work 
in the factories. It has offered its assistance and has 
promised to take all necessary steps to expedite matters. 
Its chief concern is to provide work for the laborers. 

The distribution of food among the populace is being 
carried on under German supervision. There is at present 
no famine, although it is, of course, impossible to speak of 
normal conditions. Salt is imported from Germany in 
huge quantities. And in the country as a whole several 
hundred thousand poor people are fed daily at the expense 
of the German Government. 

The latter statement seems to be borne out by a 
photograph in the Illustrated Courier de Guerre, No. 
4, which contains as its first picture a view of '' Ger- 
man soldiers distributing food to the poor people of 
Brussels." 

This account in a Swiss paper and this picture, 
which is obviously not faked, are somewhat at vari- 
ance with the bulk of the news of Belgian conditions 
and German behavior there which have reached Amer- 
ica. Unfortunately most pro-German information 
reaches America by mail only, and when it has lost 
its "news" value. Our daily papers are purveyors 
of news, and nobody can blame them severely for 
refusing to warm over cold dishes. Occasionally an 

126 



Is the English News of Belgium Reliable f 127 

early " canard " will be denied, but one can hardly 
expect an editor to shout it from the housetops that 
he had " featured " an erroneous story several weeks 
ago. The denial, therefore, appears in a paragraph 
somewhere after the day's harvest of information 
cabled over from London. There it is not seen by 
everybody, while the erroneous first impression con- 
tinues to sadden the hearts even of those who would 
not like to condemn Germany unheard. 

People who wish to be on the safe side should real- 
ize this, and instead of crediting all stories should 
believe implicitly only those which are officially con- 
firmed. Without attempting to discuss here all the 
stories detrimental to the good name of Germany, 
which people who know Germany have recognized as 
erroneous from the first, a few may be mentioned as 
characteristic of many others. 

One of the best authenticated reports of the be- 
ginning of the great war was based on the addresses 
and discussions in the British Parliament early in 
August. It there appeared that while Sir Edward 
Grey had worked hard to preserve peace, the German 
Emperor had failed to do anything. It now is seen 
from a long letter by Fred C. Conybeare of Oxford 
to the Nation (New York, December 10) that this 
was not the case. He says : 

I need not add that our English Parliament was, at the 
moment it declared war, unaware of this exchange of 
telegrams between the Kaiser and the Czar, and there was 
nothing before them to m.odify the opinion that Germany 
had been throughout as nakedly aggressive as her ally. 

Mr. Conybeare does not state whether Sir Edward 
Grey intentionally failed to lay these telegrams before 



128 Germany's Point of View 

Parliament, but he makes it perfectly clear that the 
opinion of Parliament was based on insufficient infor- 
mation. After reading his whole letter one concludes 
that, in his view, the vote of Parliament might have 
been the same, but that even in that case the feelings 
toward Germany would have been different. He dis- 
cusses this correspondence, which had been withheld 
from Parliament, and comes to the conclusion, (i), 
that Emperor William knew nothing of the Austrian 
ultimatum until after it had been sent; (2), that he 
attempted "on the three days, July 29-31, to avert 
war" ; (3), that the Kaiser had virtually obtained 
these terms (viz. : terms which would have prevented 
war) from Franz Joseph on July 31, when he learned 
that Russia had mobilized her entire army, not only 
against Austria, but also against himself as well. 
Forthwith he wired and reproached the Czar with 
this, that having sought and obtained his mediation, 
he yet was at the same time frustrating his efforts for 
peace. The Czar answers that he " appraises very 
highly " his " dear cousin's position as mediator," but 
that he had decided five days before on the military 
measures objected to by way of defense against the 
preparations of Austria. The excuse seems to me a 
little lame, and I think the Czar should have pledged 
himself at once to stay his mobilization against Ger- 
many, and give the Kaiser's attempt at mediation time 
to bear fruit ; for it was a method of securing peace 
less likely to offend Franz Joseph than Sir Edward 
Grey's proposal of a round-table conference at which 
Germany, Italy, France, and England should discuss 
his action and sit in judgment on him. The Czar 
anyhow went on with his mobilization. 



Is the English News of Belgium Reliable f 129 

In justice to Mr. Conybeare and the Nation it must 
be stated that the tenor of his letter is not pro-German. 
He is not another Shaw attacking the British Gov- 
ernment. Far from it ; but so much more justification 
exists for quoting these passages as proof of the asser- 
tion that not only the British Parliament but also the 
American press formed its first impressions on insuf- 
ficient information. 

Very few people have the time and the background 
of a previous accurate knowledge of European condi- 
tions to form their own opinions unassisted by the 
confidence which they place in this or that leader or 
in the deliberations of the Reichstag or of Parliament. 
It was, therefore, natural that many Americans should 
have started with the view of the English Parliament 
and have believed that the German Emperor had made 
no honest attempts to prevent war. When these tele- 
grams between the Emperor and the Czar became 
known in America, they appeared as a belated en- 
deavor to excuse the Emperor's inexcusable inactivity. 
The case is very different when one appreciates that 
the view of Parliament was based on incomplete 
records. 

In this case it was the absence of a bit of news 
which worked to the detriment of Germany. Many 
more times, however, it has not been the absence of 
accurate information but the superfluity of inaccu- 
rate stories which has made it diffkult to judge the 
contestants fairly. An excellent instance of this is 
discussed by Professor F. W. Taussig of Harvard 
University in the same number of the Nation (Decem- 
ber 10). He proves that the following often quoted 
words are apocryphal. They have been frequently 



130 Germany's Point of View 

attributed to Emperor William and have confirmed 
many righteous people in their dislike of the Kaiser, 
who was believed to have said to his troops : 

Remember that the German people are the chosen 
of God. On me, on me as the German Emperor, the 
spirit of God has descended. I am His weapon, His 
sword, and His vice regent. Woe to the disobedient. 
Death to cowards and unbelievers. 

Anybody at all familiar with the character of the 
men whom the Emperor was believed to have thus 
addressed, and with the tone of the Emperor's^ usual 
addresses, knew, of course, from the first that a mis- 
take had been made in attributing these words to 
William 11. For the majority of the people, however, 
nothing short of Professor Taussig's proof will be 
convincing. 

Another statement which has alienated the good 
will of many had reference to a telegram which the 
Emperor was said to have addressed to the King of 
Italy : " Conquered or conqueror, I shall not forget 
your treachery." Being a supposedly official docu- 
ment, the German Government took pains to deny 
that any such telegram had been sent. The denial 
was printed by many American papers, but was prob- 
ably seen by only a fraction of those who had read 
the original telegram, for this telegram had been 
cabled from London and been *' featured " as an im- 
portant news item. 

It would be idle to pursue this discussion, for these 
few instances suffice to show that under present con- 
ditions, when even the most reliable papers are de- 
pendent for their news on partisan sources, the indi- 
vidual reader should refrain from being impressed 



Is the English News of Belgium Reliable f 131 

by an item until either his previous knowledge or an 
official confirmation has given it the authority which 
in times of peace the reputation of the paper offers 
in which it is printed. 

Equal caution is advisable as regards the claims 
made by the various contestants. The New York 
Times' publication, Current History of the European 
War (December, 1914, Vol. i. No. i), contains on 
page 201 "A Reply to Professor Harnack," by some 
British theologians. Toward the end of the second 
column we read : 

All these considerations take on a more imperative 
cogency when the treaty rights of a small people are 
threatened by a great world power. We therefore believe 
that when Germany refused to respect the neutrality of 
Belgium, which she herself had guaranteed, Great Britain 
had no option, either in international law or in Christian 
ethics, but to defend the people of Belgium. 

This statement expresses the average British point 
of view, and one which is shared by most of those 
Americans who are pro- Ally. It would not have been 
written if these British theologians had known : 

1. That their own Government had given cause to 
Belgium, as recently as one year ago, to suspect that 
Great Britain would be the first to send troops into 
Belgium. (See Chapter ix.) 

2. That the action of their own Government had 
been instrumental in committing Belgium to negotia- 
tions, which, according to the London Times, itself 
constituted a breach of neutrality. (See Chapter v.) 

J. That their own Government was on record as 
declaring that a treaty similar to the one of 1839, 
namely, the treaty of 1867, guaranteeing the neutral- 



132 Germany's Point of View 

ity of Luxemburg bound them "neither legally nor 
morally" (which is the equivalent of the British theo- 
logians in international law or in Christian ethics) 
to come to the defense of this country. 

4. That the official organ of the British ministry 
in 1870 actually suggested that Luxemburg, whose 
neutrality Great Britain had guaranteed, should be 
ceded to Germany instead of Alsace-Lorraine. 

In substantiation of the last two points the follow- 
ing editorials from the London Times may be quoted. 
It will be remembered that Bismarck had complained 
of the continued violation of the Luxemburg neutral- 
ity in favor of France during the autumn months of 
1870 and that he had claimed the right of disregarding, 
therefore, the stipulations of the treaty of 1867. Great 
Britain was desirous of preventing this, but equally 
determined not to go to war on this account, for 
she had nothing at stake in Luxemburg comparable 
to what she believed to have at stake in Belgium. 
As a matter of fact, Germany did not invade Luxem- 
burg in 1870-71. 

The London Times of December 14, 1870, said: 

Prussia, like every other power which signed the treaty 
of 1867, undertook a double obligation, the obligation 
which by necessity is separate, to observe the neutrality 
of Luxemburg, and the obligation which is defined as 
collective, to maintain its neutrality. There is an obli- 
gation to treat Luxemburg as neutral and an obliga- 
tion to act collectively with others in preventing any 
infringement of its neutrality. What is the meaning of 
this collective guarantee? It evidently excludes the notion 
that any single state is pledged to defend Luxemburg with 
its unassisted power. [The reader will please note these 
words.] If the King-Grand Duke called upon the signa- 
tories of the treaty to fulfil the guarantee of neutrality 



Is the English News of Belgium Reliable f 133 

contained in it, grave questions would undoubtedly arise. 
We should not dream of rushing single-handed to its 
defence. We are under no obligation of honor to do so 
[the British theologians say: "Great Britain had no 
option "] ; but should have to consider well before deter- 
mining what course it behooved us to adopt 

On December 15, 1870, the Times reiterated and 
proved at length that England w^as not bound either 
legally or morally to come to the defense of Luxem- 
burg, and continued: 

Some indeed have gone so far as to regret, for the sake 
of Germany no less than of France, that Luxemburg 
cannot be ceded as a French province instead of Lorraine in 
the French treaty of peace which must come, however long 
it be delayed ; and it may not even now be too late to enter- 
tain this idea. At all events, it cannot be our duty, in 
default of any obligation, either express or implied [the 
Luxemburg guarantee of 1867 is even stronger than the 
Belgium guarantee of 1839], to defend its neutrality 
against Germany. 

And on December 16, 1870, the Times said : 

If violations of neutrality on the part of Luxemburg 
be proved, the guarantee of its neutrality, which rests on 
its preservation of neutrality, falls to the ground. 

Where in all these editorials expressing the official 
British view of the case in 1870 is there one word 
which bears out the statement made by the British 
theologians in their reply to Professor Harnack? 
They may still hold the high views of British respon- 
sibility to which they gave voice, but they must agree 
that these views are not shared by the traditions of 
their Government. You cannot at one time elabo- 
rately declare that a treaty in which you have guar- 
anteed the neutrality of a country is not binding on 



134 Germany's Point of View 

you either legally or morally, and that "you should 
not dream of rushing single-handed to its defence," 
and at another time declare war on a nation which is 
already fighting two powerful foes, claiming that you 
do so unwillingly and only because such a treaty leaves 
you "no option, either in international law or in 
Christian ethics " but to go to war. 

For some months England, nevertheless, has suc- 
ceeded in making the world believe that this had been 
the case. She thus has appeared as the moral cham- 
pion of violated innocence, while Germany became 
an object of objurgation. To this was added the fact 
that Germany pushed the war into the hostile coun- 
try from the first, and that all the natural tragedies 
subsequent to a.nj war were transacted on the soil 
of the people with whom the world at large was pre- 
pared to sympathize. It was quickly forgotten that 
only a few years ago Belgium had been the object 
of equally bitter objurgation, and that the unspeakable 
wicked atrocities of the Congo had made Belgium 
a byword of bestial brutality. Forgotten were the 
cartoons in which the poor wretches of the Congo 
prayed for venegance on their cruel masters. For- 
gotten was the fact that no patriotism, no feeling, 
however mistaken, of doing right accounted for the 
Congo crimes, except the craving for money and ever 
more money. 

It is fortunate that we are born with a short mem- 
ory, for herein lies the hope that after this tremendous 
war the people of the various nations will again 
form friendships and jointly advance the civilization 
of mankind. 

The records of history, however, are more exact. 



7^ the English News of Belgium Reliable f 135 

and the fact that Belgium has acquired a huge de- 
pendency in the Congo State, and has changed from 
the small State of 1839, which needed the guarantees 
of her neighbors, to one of very great wealth, and has 
become a colonial empire of far greater proportions 
than Germany, this fact will stare all future historians 
in the face. It is, therefore, doubtful whether they 
will hold that the Belgium of 1914 was the Belgium 
of 1839, which was forced to accept the decree of 
perpetual neutrality. If this should be their verdict, 
no obliquity will be charged either to Belgium or 
Great Britain for their military conversations and 
agreements entered into in 1906 and probably con- 
tinued since then. For a powerful and sovereign 
State has the right to make military or other arrange- 
ments with any nation it chooses. But as long as 
Belgium was a neutral country, such agreements were 
improper, and constituted a breach of neutrality, as 
the London Times itself (October 12, 1913) confessed. 
This confession, to be sure, was made before it had 
become known that records of these agreements had 
been found in Brussels by the German Government. 
This point is so important that the denial of the 
existence of such records by the British and Belgian 
ambassadors, or the attempt on their part to explain 
them as harmless, is perfectly natural. The follow- 
ing statement, however, by the Belgian minister in 
Washington, Mr. Havenith, quoted in the Nation, De- 
cember 10, is most remarkable: 



The Belgian Government has requested that these 
alleged documents should be published in full. Three 
months have passed since this alleged discovery, but 
nothing has appeared. 



136 Germany's Point of View 

To which the Nation adds : 

What he refers to is, of course, the documents found in 
Brussels which the Germans assert are proof that Belgium 
had surrendered her neutrality to England. That they do 
show anything of the kind, there is not the faintest reason 
to believe. ... It ought to be remembered, in all this, that 
the plea made by Germany — last reiterated by the Im- 
perial Chancellor in his speech a few days ago — is not 
only a plea in defence of Germany's conduct, but a charge 
against Belgium of disgraceful bad faith. To make such 
a charge without at least a respectable pretence of proving 
it is monstrous, and really but intensifies the feeling of 
Germany's guilt in the whole matter. 

The remarkable thing is that the German Govern- 
ment published lengthy extracts from the documents 
found in Brussels, in the official North German Ga- 
zette of October 13, 1914, first edition, where they 
cover almost half a page. Neither Mr. Havenith nor 
the editor of the Nation read, it would seem, the 
official Gazette or any other German paper, for there 
can be no doubt that this important information 
was reprinted in every German newspaper. Before 
the war, it was not necessary for American editors 
to read German or to have on their staffs men familiar 
with Germany and able to read German papers, be- 
cause, whatever we may think of Englishmen, their 
sense of fairness never permitted them to suppress 
the important information of other countries — albeit 
they sometimes colored it. American editors, there- 
fore, learned to rely on their London news and to 
dispense with the expensive adjuncts of men who 
are authorities on other countries. During the war, 
however, it would be asking too much of England to 
transmit not only her own news but also that favor- 
able to Germany and detrimental to herself. This 



7^ the English News of Belgium Reliable? 137 

observation, nevertheless, has not yet appealed as natu- 
ral to many Americans. It is indeed difficult to doubt 
the reliability of a source which one has come to 
trust through the test of many years. The German 
news, on the other hand, which has been freely offered 
in this country, has not always appealed to every- 
body. It is, however, to be hoped that the editors 
of the more important American dailies and weeklies 
will come to realize from their actual experience that 
under present conditions they cannot expect to live 
up to their standards of justice unless they supplement 
or check their London news by the perusal of at 
least the official German Gazette. 

The most important documents, as published in the 
Gazette, were found in a portfolio which was in- 
scribed. Intervention Anglaise en Belgique. There 
was a letter dated April 10, 1906, and addressed to 
the Belgian Minister of War, which tells that the chief 
of the Belgian general staff had held several consul- 
tations with the British military attache in Brussels, 
Lieutenant Colonel Bernardiston, at the latter's re- 
quest. These two gentlemen had worked out a plan 
of campaign of England and Belgium against Ger- 
many, for which England was to supply an expedi- 
tionary force of one hundred thousand men. The 
plan had met the approval of the chief of the British 
general staff, Major General Grierson (now deceased). 
Other papers contained full details of the strength 
of the various arms of the British corps and the 
names of the ports where the troops would embark 
and disembark. There was also an exact " time 
table." On the strength of this information the Bel- 
gian general staff prepared exact plans how and where 



138 Germany's Point of View 

the troops should enter Belgium, how they should be 
provisioned, and where they should be quartered. 
These details were carefully worked out in a joint 
conference by Belgian and English officers. The lat- 
ter demanded that a large number of interpreters and 
Belgian gendarmes should be placed at the disposal 
of the British troops, who were to be furnished with 
the necessary maps. These maps of Belgium were 
later prepared in English. Some of them have been 
found and been published in the Gazette. 

Dunkirk, Calais, and Boulogne were the ports where 
the British troops were to disembark, and from where 
Belgian rolling stock was to transport them into Bel- 
gium. Such an arrangement is of course unthinkable 
without a previous arrangement also with France. 
That such an arrangement existed is, moreover, proved 
by the presence of the French plan of campaign in 
the secret archives in Brussels. 

Another interesting paper contains the statement of 
Lieutenant Colonel Barnardiston that it was impos- 
sible at that time to count on the support of Holland. 
He also made the confidential announcement that the 
British reserves would be landed in Antwerp, as soon 
as the sea should be swept clean of the German ships. 
He further urged on Belgium the advisability of es- 
tablishing an exhaustive system of espionage in the 
western provinces of Germany. 

In addition to the documents in the portfolio Inter- 
vention Anglaise en Belgique, an exhaustive report of 
Baron Greindl to the Belgian Secretary of Foreign 
Affairs has been found. Baron Greindl was Belgian 
ambassador in Berlin for many years. He called 
attention in his report to the danger threatening his 



Is the English News of Belgium Reliable? 139 

country from its surrender to one of the powers of 
the entente. Baron Greindl, in fact, seems to have 
been more afraid of a violation of Belgian neutrality 
by England than by anybody else. And that his view 
was eventually accepted by his Government as correct 
is proved by the latest publication of Sir Edward 
Grey, which was discussed in a previous chapter. 

The publication of these papers in the German 
Official Gazette was almost simultaneous with an arti- 
cle in the London Times, which tried to absolve the 
British Government from the charge of negligence 
because they had not prevented the fall of Antwerp. 

The Times of October 12, 1914, said: 

The last and greatest difficulty was the neutrality which 
had been imposed upon Belgium against her will. A more 
fatal gift was never presented to any state. It prevented 
her from combining with the Netherlands for the defence 
of their common and inseparable interests, and, worse than 
that, it made it impracticable for Belgium to enter into 
any conversation or arrangement, military or other, which 
would insure to her the rapid and effective support of her 
English friends. All such ideas, if they were entertained — 
and England's weakness on land threw them into the 
shade — had to be postponed until Belgian territory was 
violated by an aggressor, when in all human probability the 
aid desired would come too late. 

The documents from Brussels, published by the 

German Government, refer to what must be called a 

" conversation or arrangement, military or other," and 

consequently constitute, according to the Times itself, 

an infringement of Belgian neutrality. Since these 

arrangements were made at the request of the British 

military attache, it was Great Britain herself who 

first violated the treaty of 1839, ^'^^ tempted Belgium 

to commit an act by which she forfeited all the rights 

guaranteed to a neutral by international law. 



CHAPTER XI 



GERMAN SOLDIERS 



MOLTKE wrote on November 19, 1880: 
Nobody, I think, can deny that the general 
softening of men's manners has been followed^ by a 
more humane way of waging war. The introduction 
in our generation of universal service in the army has 
marked a long step in the direction of the desired aim, 
for it has brought also the educated classes into the 
army. The truth of this statement is fully borne out 
by the reports which have reached Germany from the 
front. The following incident, reported by the chief 
actor, may well form the basis on which to construct 
a picture of the German army in the field today. 
It is a translation of Professor Hartmann's own 
account: 

French Lesson at the Front 

Place — A stubblefield in Belgium. 
Time — Autumn, 1914. 

After a forced march in brigade formation, our regi- 
ment is resting. The guns have been stacked and the 
knapsacks and cloaks thrown off. The field kitchens are 
drawing up, and company after company, in excellent 
order, the soldiers are moving up to receive their cups of 
hot coffee, which has been brewed on the march. The 
brown liquid has revived their spirits, and in animated 
groups the soldiers are lounging on the field, talking and 
laughing. Together with my cronies (a district attorney, 

140 



German Soldiers 141 

a teacher from Vogelsburg, and a young fellow of eighteen, 
with blue, expectant eyes, who has been promoted to a 
lieutenancy since the war began) I have occupied a shock 
of sheaves. Here we are partaking, like gormandizers, of 
our breakfast, which consists of army bread — as dry as 
it is nourishing — and a slice of bacon. We are in excel- 
lent humor. Next to us, our reservists, splendid fellows 
from the country, have lighted their pipes and are singing 
the beautiful home and soldier songs which often soften 
for the time being even the hardest hearts of warriors. 

" France, poor France, how will you fare 
When our German militaire 
Visits you ? Colors : Black and white and red. 
Poor little France, it is too bad ! " 

Songs like this are heard all over the field, while the 
distant thunder of cannon in the west tells us that our 
comrades are in action. Everybody is elated. We have 
just heard " officially," from some staff officers who flew 
by here in an automobile, that our troops have entered 
Brussels; and the cloud of smoke in the southeast can 
mean only one thing, according to our maps — that the 
fortress of Longwy is being successfully bombarded. We 
feel it in our bones that today or tomorrow we, too, shall 
have work to do. 

" Professor," an imperious voice is suddenly shouting 
across the field. " My captain," I reply at once, inter- 
rupting my pleasant rest, albeit somewhat awkwardly, 
considering my weight and age of thirty-six. When I 
stand at attention before my captain, who is of my age 
and the best of comrades after hours, while very strict 
in his official capacity, he says : " Professor, orders from 
the chief of the batallion : * French lessons to the com- 
pany.' Begin at once. Nobody knows where we shall be 
tonight." " Very well, sir." 

" Second company, attention ! Take out your pencils 
and notebooks. Meet our professor. Lieutenant of Reserve 
Hartmann ! " 

Gay murmurs and laughter pass along the line, and 
after a few minutes the whole company is gathered about 
me, comfortably stretched out on the field, with paper and 
pencils. The lesson begins : 

" Well, then, fellows, we are in Belgium now, and 



142 Germany's Point of View 

soon we shall be in France. There they use francs 
and centimes. Write down : i franc = lOO centimes 
(s-a-n-t-ee-m) ; i franc = 80 pfennige; i sou (s-00) =4 
pfennige; i franc = 20 sous. Don't let the Frenchmen 
cheat you. Tell me, what fine things do you wish to buy 
in France ? " 

" Wine," most of them shout in reply. 

"Well, then, write: du vin (d-e-v-e-n-g). And now 
remember this once for all: Every word in which there 
is an n or an w is pronounced through the nose, and is 
prolonged, stretched out like a rubber band, as it were. 
If you don't do that, the people won't understand you. 
Well, then: du vin — " and (just as if I stood before my 
beginners' class at home) I try to produce a nasal sound 
of incomparable beauty. 

" Now, fellows, close your nostrils and try to imitate 
me ! " 

At once two hundred and fifty hard German fists are 
closing, more or less tightly, over as many organs of 
smell, and " du vin " rings the challenging sound all over 
the field. The whole company roars with laughter. What 
a funny speech that is ! 

"Go on writing: Milk — du lait (d-e-l-a) ; lard — du 
lard (d-e-l-ar) ; ham — du jambon (d-e-sh-ang-b-ong) ; 
cheese — du fromage (d-e-f-r-o-m-arsh)." 

Many another delicacy is served on paper, and all the 
soldiers are writing as diligently as if their hard hands 
had always held a pen at home. 

Then we turn to the numerals i to 10 (eng, do, troa, 
katt, senk, sees, etc.), and to the polite forms of address, 
" msyo," " madam," " madmoasell." Finally we learn, 
Donnez-moi (donna moa), which they are told to put 
before the thing they want, if they are asking for any- 
thing. One fellow wants to know the French for " kiss," 
and amid great delight " le baza " is entered in every 
notebook and every memory. 

" This is a fine and necessary word, boys, and after it 
write * I'amour ' (larmoor), love, for these two words 
belong together. And don't ever forget to place ' donna 
moa ' before them. ' Soldiers to the guns ! ' the order 
sounds. ' Second company to your guns ! ' the order is 
taken up everywhere. Notebooks and pencils are stored 
away in the bread boxes, and ten minutes later the iron 
line is again on the march to meet the enemy." 



German Soldiers 143 



We may imagine them singing the splendid march- 
ing song, Ich halt einen Kameraden. After each verse 
the Httle song of birds and woods and home is added. 
Thus : 

I had a friend and comrade, 

None knew a better boy. 
The drums are calling loudly. 
See, how he answers proudly ! 

To walk with him was joy. 

The birds in the woods are singing, 
Are singing to warm your heart. 

At home, ah, at home, your dear ones 
We'll meet, and never will part. 

Gloria ! Gloria ! Victoria ! 

With heart and hand for the Fatherland ! 

A bullet came to meet us — 

Was it meant for you or me? 
It struck him down, and, calling 
My name, I saw him falling. 

He seemed a part of me. 

The birds in the woods are singing. 
Are singing to warm your heart. 

At home, ah, at home, your dear ones 
We'll meet, and never will part. 

Gloria ! Gloria ! Victoria ! 

With heart and hand for the Fatherland ! 

Once more he tried to touch me; 

I could not take his hand. 
My gun was loaded quickly. 
Remain in heaven, pray thee. 

My comrade and my friend ! 

The birds in the woods are singing, 
Are singing to warm your heart. 

At home, ah, at home, your dear ones 
We'll meet, and never will part. 

Gloria ! Gloria ! Victoria ! 

With heart and hand for the Fatherland ! 



144 Germany's Point of View 

The song died away, the thunder of the cannon 
grew louder, the well-shod feet of the soldiers re- 
sounded on the hard road, but many a man heard 
nought but the beating of his own heart. Then the 
professor struck up Korner's Prayer During Battle 
(given here in the translation by C. T. Brooks from 
the excellent collection of German songs in The Ger- 
man Classics), and company after company joined in 
the magnificent song: 



Father, I call to thee. 
The roaring artillery's clouds thicken round me; 
The hiss and the glare of the loud bolts confound me. 

Ruler of battles, I call on thee : 

O Father, lead' thou me ! 

O Father, lead thou me ; 
To victory, to death, dread Commander, O guide me; 
The dark valley brightens when thou art beside me; 

Lord, as thou wilt, so lead me. 

God, I acknowledge thee. 

God, I acknowledge thee; 
When the breeze through the dry leaves of autumn is 

moaning, 
When the thunderstorm of battle is groaning, 

Fount of mercy, in each I acknowledge thee. 

O Father, bless thou me ! 

O Father, bless thou me; 
I trust in thy mercy, whate'er may befall me ; 
'Tis thy word that hath sent me ; that word can recall me. 

Living or dying, O bless thou me ! 

Father, I honor thee. 

Father, I honor thee; 
Not for earth's hoards or honors we here are contending; 
All that is holy our swords are defending; 

Then falling, and conquering, I honor thee. 

God, I repose in thee. 



German Soldiers 145 



God, I repose in thee ; 
When the thunders of death my soul are greeting, 
When the gashed veins bleed, and the life is fleeting, 

In thee, my God, I repose in thee. 

Father, I call on thee. 

The very air seemed purified. Whatever selfish 
train of thought the individual soldier or officer had 
been following fell into insignificance before the grand 
conception of God and man. Deep silence ensued, 
almost mechanically the troops moved on. Suddenly 
the colonel was seen to receive an order, and, on a 
message from him, the professor struck up another 
song. Everybody knew what that meant, for it was 
the German national song: Deutschland, Deutschland 
Uber Alles. It is here given in the translation by 
Margarete Munsterberg : 

German land above all others, 

Dear above all other lands, 
That — a faithful host of brothers — - 

Evermore united stands ; 
That, from Maas to farthest Memel, 

And from Etsch to Belt expands : — 
German land, above all others. 

Dear above all other lands ! 

German faith and German women, 

German wine and German song, 
In the world shall keep the beauties 

Which of old to them belong. 
Still to noble deeds inspiring. 

They shall always make us strong — 
German faith and German women, 

German wine and German song ! 

Union, right, and freedom ever 

For the German Fatherland ! 
So, with brotherly endeavor, 

Let us strive with heart and hand ! 



146 Germany's Point of View 

For a bliss that wavers never, 

Union, right, and freedom stand — 

In this glory bloom forever. 

Bloom, my German Fatherland ! 

- " In less than an hour," Professor Hartmann's sim- 
ple story given above says, " we received our baptism 
of fire." 

Several weeks have "passed since that first French 
lesson. Many a bullet has come across and separated 
" friends and comrades." The rest have doubtless 
often repeated the words '' donnez-moi du vin/'^ and. 
some may have had the opportunity of saying, " don- 
nez-nioi un haiser, mademoiselle." All have daily sung 
Deutschland, Deutschland liber alles, and put their, 
whole heart into the refrain : 

At home, ah, at home, you dear ones. 
We'll meet, and never will part. 

Entrenched from Strassburg to the sea, the Ger- 
man troops lie facing their opponents, and, if accounts 
are true, a kind of truce stops all activity along the 
entire line from sundown to five-thirty in the morn- 
ing. On Christmas eve, as the shadows deepened, a 
new air from the German side was wafted across 
the frosty ground. The French and English knew 
its message. But the wild Indian troops, the Zouaves, 
and the Turkos had not heard it before, and had never 
felt the deep stirrings of the human heart, when 

Stille Nacht, heilige Nacht! 

broke on the silence of the holy night. 

There was a German Christmas party in the Hotel 
Somerset during the holidays in December, 1914. In 



German Soldiers 147 

the center a huge spruce tree, surrounded by a forest 
of smaller trees, almost touched the ceiling. At one 
end hung a picture of William 11^ painted as Germans 
know the man to be- — strong, upright, just and kindly. 

Suddenly the lights were lowered, while hundreds 
of gay little dots illuminated the huge Christmas tree. 
The band began the first soft tones of Stille Nacht, 
and the whole large company of Germans and their 
American friends, including the Governor of the Com- 
monwealth, sang this most German of all German 
songs. The impression was overpowering. Gently 
lighted by a few concealed bulbs, the portrait of 
William 11 smiled on the company. Forgotten were 
the cares, forgotten every bitterness, for there was 
not a man or woman whose heart did not expand in 
love and gratitude to God. 

Such was the feeling here when a few hundred 
people joined in this song. What was it on the bat- 
tlefields of Europe, when in the West and in the East 
not hundreds but thousands, nay many hundred hun- 
dred thousand German soldiers reverently sang their 
Christmas song: 



Silent night ! Holy night ! 

All is dark, save the light 

Round yon virgin mother and Child ! 

Holy Infant, so tender and mild. 

Sleep in heavenly peace ! 

Sleep in heavenly peace ! 

Silent night ! Holy night ! 
Shepherds quake at the sight ! 
Glories stream from heaven afar, 
Heavenly hosts sing Alleluia, 
Christ, the Saviour, is born ! 
Christ, the Saviour, is born ! 



148 Germany's Point of View 

Silent night ! Holy night ! 
Child of heaven, oh ! how bright 
Is the smile on thy lovely face, 
With its message of heavenly grace, 
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth ! 
Jesus, Lord, at Thy birth ! 



CHAPTER XII 

THE MEANING OF TIPPERARY 

DEALERS in phonographs report that more rec- 
ords of Ifs a Long Way to Tipperary were 
sold in Boston during the Christmas season of 1914 
than of any other song. The tune is Hvely and catch- 
ing, and Tipperary, like many Irish names, has a 
sound tinged with romance. The British have made 
this their marching song, and there are people, no 
doubt, who in their imagination see and hear brave 
battalions marching to the defense of Belgium. Tip- 
perary, Tipperary ! The British are coming ! Tip- 
perary ! 

Do you know what that means? Do you know that 
Tipperary is a county of Ireland? That in 1841 it 
had 435,553 inhabitants, and seventy years later, in 
1911, only 151,951 inhabitants? That because of Eng- 
lish cruelty, misrule, avarice, and oppression, this coun- 
ty has today only about one-third as many inhabitants 
as it had in 1841 ? Before assuming that freedom and 
justice have entrusted their case to the side which 
today sings Tipperary, would it not be wise to ask 
whether freedom and justice have been at home in 
Tipperary and in Ireland through these many years 
of English rule? 

Forty-two years ago, Wendell Phillips addressed 
the elite of Boston, as the Boston Daily Advertiser of 
that day says, on the Irish Question and more espe- 

149 



150 Germany's Point of View 

cially on the defense of England which the famous 
historian, James Anthony Froude, had attempted to 
make. Phillips said : 

In my hasty way I have had occasion to study somewhat 
at length the history of Ireland in its relations to the 
British Government, and I confess, with the exception 
of the dates and names, I should not have recognized the 
picture which the brilliant essayist drew. 

Is it not exactly the same today? The more one 
knows of the real Germany, the less one recognizes 
the picture which England draws in the news thiat is 
flashed over her cables to the remotest parts of the 
world. One would think that this would detract from 
its value. On the contrary, to certain minds and news- 
papers it is more valuable because of its distortion. 
Even so noble a soul as Dr. Agnes Repplier has tem- 
porarily lost her bearing, and this " prominent " essay- 
ist (to quote Who's Who in America) wrote recently : 
" The Germany described by Dr. Dernburg is one 
which few Americans will recognize." Under ordi- 
nary conditions she would have asked : " Is it one 
which those who have been born there or lived there 
will recognize?" and being unanimously assured that 
it is, she would have been satisfied and pleased to have 
learned something. Instead, she is in search of a 
Germany which will square with the fantastic notions 
with which the British Press Bureau has filled her 
mind. 

In 1872 Mr. Froude was, as it were, the British 
Press Bureau, desirous of spreading erroneous notions 
concerning the English-Irish relations in this country. 
But then Wendell Phillips held aloft the torch of truth 
in Boston. Who will be the Wendell Phillips today? 



The Meaning of Tipperary 151 

Then an Ireland was presented to America, not as it 
was, but as England wished it were, that she might 
excuse her actions. Today it is exactly the same. If 
Germany were as the English reports paint her, then 
and only then would there be an excuse for England 
joining in war with Russia and Russia's faithful money 
lender and ally, France. If, on the other hand, Ger- 
many is as those who have known her through years 
unanimously believe her to be, then England stands 
accused. Herein lies the terrible dilemma of the people 
whose sympathies are v/ith the Allies, because they 
know them best or are sprung from their blood. Be- 
fore the Massachusetts Teachers' Club recently Fred- 
eric P. Fish drew an absolutely im.partial picture of 
present European conditions, with which he is prob- 
ably as familiar as anybody in Boston. After the 
meeting one of the members remarked, " I had no idea 
that Fish was pro-German." The more the truth 
gains ground, the more the terrible injustice done 
Germany and its men and women appears. For a 
true report to overtake a false one is not easy, and 
there are few men who can help a just cause as 
Wendell Phillips did in December, 1872. Referring to 
Mr. Froude's lecture, he said : 

No doubt it was fair enough to England. With rare 
justice he painted her as black as she deserved. . . . 
When you turn to Ireland, every statement, I think, which 
the Englishman made is false ; false in this sense, that it 
clutched at every idle tale which reflected upon Ireland, 
while it subjected to just and merciless scrutiny every 
story that told against England. He painted the poverty, 
the anarchy, the demoralization, the degradation of Ireland 
for the past three centuries, as if it stood out exceptional 
in Europe, as if every other kingdom was bright, and this 
was the only dark and disgusting spot on the Continent; 



152 Germany's Point of View 

whereas he knew, and would not, if questioned, have 
denied, that the same poverty, the same reckless immoral- 
ity, the same incredible ignorance which he attributed to 
the population of Ireland was true of France at that day, 
true of England at the same period, truer still of Scotland 
at every date that he named. And then, when he came 
to the public men of Ireland, he painted them monsters of 
corruption, steeped in the utmost subserviency, in the most 
entire readiness to traffic for votes and principles, when 
he knew that, all that being granted, these men were only 
toiling and panting in their narrow capacity to lift them- 
selves up to the level of the corruption of their English 
brothers. He painted every leading Irishman but Grattan 
either as a noisy demagogue or a childish sentimentalist; 
and even Grattan, when he had said that he was honest; 
he finally ended him by painting him a simpleton. . . . 
Eight years ago I was hissed in Cooper Institute for 
having said that England was a second-rate Power on the 
chess-board of Europe; but today her journalists have 
ceased to deny the fact, and are engaged in an explana- 
tion of why she is so. And the two great influences which 
have made her fall from a first-class Power are the neglect 
and oppression of her own masses, and seven centuries of 
unadulterated and infamous oppression of Ireland. 

Tipperary ! It is a long way to Tipperary ! But Eng- 
land, it is not a long way from Tipperary. The next 
time the reader hears your catching tune, he will' ask 
" What did England do with the 300,000 people that are 
less in Tipperary today than were there two generations 
ago ? " And over the embarrassed silence he will hear 
the death groans of saintly Father Sheehy, the parish 
priest of Tipperary, whom the English murdered in 
Clonmel Jail in 1782 after he had been tried and 
acquitted in Dublin. '' They placed his severed head 
upon a pike above the gates of gloomy Clonmel Jail, 
where it remained for ten years exposed to the jeers 
of a brutal British soldiery." At last the aged sister 
of Father Sheehy is said to have stolen the head and 



The Meaning of Tipper ary 153 

buried it with his dismembered body in St. Stephen's 
Cemetery in sacred Tipperary soil. Two other ecclesi- 
astics, Albert O'Brien, Archbishop of Cashel and 
Emly, and Bishop Dwyer, were hanged by the English 
in the market place of Tipperary. 

The more one listens the louder and clearer the 
groans from murdered and massacred priests, women 
and children, old men and soldiers, strike one's ear, 
not only from Tipperary, but from everywhere in 
Ireland and through the whole of the past seven 
centuries. 

The early history of Ireland is not well known, and 
most of the chronicles collected in the eleventh and 
twelfth centuries, while based on facts, have come 
down to us in the nature of fables. So much, however, 
is sure, that the Romans never conquered Ireland as 
they had conquered England, for there are no Roman 
names in Ireland to tell of such conquests. St. Patrick 
about 450 and St. Columba, a century later, introduced 
and strengthened the Christian religion, and while the 
rest of Europe was from about 500 to 900 A. D. a 
continuous battlefield on which the younger races were 
taking up their new abodes, Ireland was during these 
centuries the home of scholars and saints, and the 
source of the best available cultural light. Then came 
the conquest by the Danes, who were driven out after 
200 years by Brian Boru, who had succeeded in uniting 
the various factions into one strong army. 

At his death, however, the fatal Irish individualism 
reasserted itself and after several generations of divi- 
sion and anarchy Henry 11 of England had no difficulty 
in establishing his rule in Ireland. "The next six 
hundred and fifty years" we read in volume ix of 



154 Germany's Point of View 

Irish Literature, edited by Justin McCarthy, are a 
''black catalogue of wars of conquest and obstinate 
resistance, confiscation, plunder, tyranny, and injus- 
tices, nay, of extermination itself." Under Edward iii 
the ancient Irish laws were abolished and intermar- 
riages between the English and the Irish were for- 
bidden and punished, not as misdemeanors, but as 
crimes. And worst of all, the use of the Irish lan- 
guage was forbidden. This was centuries ago, but 
the language did not disappear. In 185 1 there were 
1,204,684 people who spoke it, and in 189 1 680,174, 
while of these 38,121 people knew no other langauge. 
This means that even today there are nine people in 
every thousand who cannot speak English. 

In 1495, just as the discovery of America opened 
the prospect of freedom and breadth of vision to the 
world, the notorious Poynings' act fastened the tyranny 
of England on Ireland, for it forbade the Irish Parlia- 
ment to convene except at the call of the English king 
or to deliberate on measures other than those of his 
choosing. This fettered the political life of the coun- 
try and made any opposition against the persecution 
and robbery of the king's barons impossible. The 
cruelties then perpetrated against the whole Irish race 
defy description and even if much is discarded as 
fable, the residuum is enough to stain forever the 
good name of the conquerors. 

Things, however, went from bad to worse, for after 
the reformation, under Henry viii^ religious fanaticism 
was added to arrogance and race hatred. Queen 
Elizabeth persecuted the Catholic Irish with great cun- 
ning, and when the rebellion of Hugh O'Neill had 
collapsed, parcelled out a whole county to favored 



The Meaning of Tipperary 155 

English colonists. Cromwell, however, was the most 
ruthless foe Ireland has ever had. He reduced the 
country in nine months and held it in an iron grip. 
Some amelioration took place under Charles 11 and 
James 11^ but not enough to prevent a civil war, which 
culminated in the defense of Limerick, the battle of 
the Boyne, and the Treaty of Limerick in 169 1. 

Does Sir Edward Grey remember this treaty of 
Limerick? Does he know that the Irish laid down 
their arms trusting the English word? And has he 
forgotten that the English Parliament broke this 
treaty, when the Irish troops were dispersed, broke 
it against the will of the king who wished to keep 
his word, and without any excuse? In the work by 
Justin McCarthy quoted above we read : 

The infamous ignoring of this treaty by the conqueror 
was a violation of plighted honor which has done more 
than any one event to keep alive Irish hatred and distrust 
of England. 

Nor did England care what the Irish thought. She 
imposed on them worse penal laws (1695-97) than 
she had given them before, and went serenely on 
coercing and robbing them and stamping out the fre- 
quent rebellions with blood and iron. 

The first turn for the better was brought about 
by America. When she had won her independence, 
England was prepared to listen to the voice of greater 
moderation. First she repealed the Poynings' Act, 
and driven to action by men like Burke, Grattan and 
Flood she started on the legislative career which has 
just resulted in the home rule bill. But even in this 
bill the English Government could not hew straight 
to the line of honesty. To satisfy Redmond and his 



156 Germany's Point of View 

followers the bill has been passed and signed, and to 
satisfy Carson and his followers it has been suspended 
for a year and the promise has been given that it will 
never be put into execution in its present form. No 
national foe of England, nor Bernard Shaw himself, 
has uttered as severe strictures of the Asquith Gov- 
ernment as the Irish since the signing of the Home 
Rule bill. The present Government, they have said, 
is so crooked that they cannot even perform the sim- 
plest routine act in a straightforward manner. 

The hundred years and more intervening between 
the repeal of the Poynings' Act and the passage of 
the home rule bill are among the worst that beautiful 
island has suffered. In previous centuries, as Wendell 
Phillips pointed out, sordid conditions could be found 
in every country. The nineteenth century, however, 
was one of unparalleled growth in every other civilized 
State. The advance was rapid everywhere but — in 
Ireland. The populations and their prosperity grew 
everywhere but — in Ireland. Here, however, many 
died by the sword, more of neglect, and countless 
numbers of starvation. The Patriotic Societies Rebel- 
lion was put down in 1800, and in the next year Ire- 
land was " tricked out of its Parliament " which it 
had preserved at least in name, and was " cheated into 
union with Great Britain." 

The first to wage war under the altered conditions 
was Robert Emmet, whose parents were at home in 
Tipperary. The next time you hear Tipperary sung, 
why not include gallant Robert Emmet in the gallery 
of English victims whose ghosts are liberated by the 
British marching song, for he was hanged in Dublin 
in 1803! 



The Meaning of Tipperary 157 



The next uprising of large proportions took place 
in the early forties. A national newspaper, the Nation, 
had been founded by two Catholics and one Protestant 
in 1842, and, being ably conducted, had spread the 
Irish hopes of freedom. The movement failed, and 
most of the leaders were cast into prison and none too 
well treated, among them Daniel O'Connell, Thomas 
Steele, and Richard Barrett. One of the most bril- 
liant and violent opponents of the English at that 
time was a Unitarian minister, John Mitchel. He was 
arrested, tried, and condemned as a felon to Van 
Diemen's Land! Before the sentence could be exe- 
cuted Tipperary elected him to a seat in Parliament. 
One more man to remember when Tipperary strikes' 
your ear — a Unitarian minister, John Mitchel, con- 
demned by the English as a felon to Van Diemen's 
Land considerably less than one hundred years ago, 
because he dared to raise his voice against the oppres- 
sion of his people! Tipperary! The English are 
coming ! 

And then the terrible calamity of blight on their 
potato fields visited the Irish in two successive years, 
1845 arid 1846. It was followed by the great famine. 
Why? Was there no food in the country? Had the 
farmers no stock in their barns, no fowl, or goats, or 
sheep ? Had they no grain ? Oh, yes ; they had all 
this. But they dared not touch it. It had to be 
shipped to England to pay the rent to the landlords, 
most of whom lived in England. Think of it ; while 
people were dying by the thousands, while kind-hearted 
America and other countries sent supplies, and Eng- 
land magnanimously appropriated money for the build- 
ing of unnecessary roads that the half-starved Irish 



158 Germany's Point of View 



might earn a penny, these poor, downtrodden people 
had to export to England the food they had, that 
they might pay their absentee landlords ! If they did 
not pay they were evicted. Conditions grew bad be- 
yond description. A traveler of the time wrote after 
seeing the people: "I wonder not that they die, but 
that some of them live." 

When the famine was over, fever set in, and then 
the large emigration began. Within a few years Ire- 
land had lost 2,000,000 of her small population. And 
right across the narrow strip of water England was 
prospering, and some of her good people were writing 
books or talking publicly, just as they are today, that 
personal kindness and morality should distinguish na- 
tions as well as individuals. The trouble with these 
good people is that they are willing, although they 
are in the majority, to retain at the head of their 
affairs men whose principles are not theirs. They and 
many good Americans raise their voices to heaven 
against Germany today because Germany, they say, 
is not feeding Belgium. Feed Belgium! Germany 
would wish nothing better than that, if England would 
let her buy the necessary food. But contrary to all 
international law, contrary to the principles of justice 
enunciated by Sir Edward Grey himself during the 
Russo-Japanese War (see Atlantic Monthly, Decem- 
ber, 1914), England and her Allies will not permit 
one ounce of foodstuff to reach the German ports or 
any neutral ports where Germany could buy it. To 
deprive an army of food has always been considered 
fair, but to try to starve out a whole people of non- 
combatants, to starve, incidentally, also the Belgians 
who have risked their all for England, and to starve 



The Meaning of Tipperary 159 

one-fifth of the French population which is living in 
territory now held by the Germans, this is a procedure 
unheard of in the annals of history. Nor is there 
another people in the world that could be guilty of 
it except the English who, seventy years ago, with 
great equanimity saw a million Irish starve to death 
that they themselves might collect their regular rent! 

One would have thought that the Irish famine 
would have induced the English to attempt a thor- 
ough house-cleaning. But even this lesson was not 
strong enough. '' Young Ireland " and the '' Fenian 
Brotherhood " rose and fell before some reforms were 
attempted. 

In 1869 the disestablishment of the Irish Church 
was decreed, and in 1870 the first Irish Law Act 
was passed. Then, however, new cruelties were per- 
petrated and the Irish National Land League was sup- 
pressed and its leaders imprisoned. In C. S. Parnell, 
finally, the Irish cause found a worthy leader. The 
result was the first Home Rule bill, which was de- 
feated in 1886, and the second Home Rule bill in 1893, 
which was likewise defeated. While the Local Gov- 
ernment Act of 1898 marked the first great step in 
advance, what the fate of the present Home Rule 
bill will be nobody knows. The Irish have not for- 
gotten the Treaty of Limerick, and are not yet con- 
vinced that John G. Rowe is wrong who says in his 
Romance of Irish History the English slogan as re- 
gards the Irish was '' No faith was to be kept with 
the Irish." 

This is a short survey of Irish history under Eng- 
lish rule. It has been deemed unnecessary to dwell on 
individual scenes of horror. But if the reader is in- 



i6o Germany's Point of View 

terested in this side of the case there are many books 
written on the subject. The more he reads, the more 
clearly he will see where the English writers of today 
get their inspiration for their accounts of the atrocities 
they ascribe to the Germans. To such inquisitive 
souls the Athencu Oxonienses, by Anthony Wood, is 
especially recommended, for it contains the accounts 
of an eye-witness of the storming of Drogheda. 

The friends of Drogheda and the monsters of Tip- 
perary are not the English any one of us know, for 
these are kind-hearted and just. The writer recently 
met one of a band of unselfish Englishmen who have 
made it their business to bring a bit of love and human 
kindness to the Germans, Austrians, and Hungarians 
in the English detention camps. They are doing much 
good, but as long as they acquiesce in the conduct 
of war as waged by their Government in Ireland, South 
Africa, Egypt, and India, they must bear the scorn 
which an unprejudiced posterity will heap upon them. 

It has been claimed that that was the only kind 
of warfare fitted to the savage manner of their Indian 
opponents. After the rebellion of Cawnpore in India, 
General James George Neill ordered that all "those 
engaged in the rebellion should lick up the dried blood 
of the murdered before being hanged, thereby to add 
the certainty of hell after death to their present tor- 
ments." The official order (July 26, 1857) reads: 
" The task will be made as revolting to his (the pris- 
oner's) feelings as possible, and the provost-marshal 
will use the lash in forcing anyone objecting to com- 
plete the task." Such treatment is demanded by the 
savage nature of the Indian natives, according to the 
English themselves, and yet it is these very Indians 



The Meaning of Tipperary i6i 

that the EngHsh have now imported to fight the white 
man's battle ! 

Mr. Froude, the English Press Bureau of a genera- 
tion ago, explained the English attitude in an un- 
guarded moment as follows : 

The English, ever ready, when confronted with similar 
problems {i. e., military difficulty] in India or elsewhere 
[meaning Ireland], to use same [excessive cruelties] on 
lighter occasions, yet make a compromise with their con- 
sciences, and when the severity is over, and the fruits of 
it in peace and order are gathered and enjoyed, agree 
usually or always to exclaim against the needless cruelty. 

Father Sheehy, Archbishop O'Brien, Bishop Dwyer, 
Robert Emmet, John Mitchell Tipperary! Ifs a 
long way to Tipperary! 



CHAPTER XIII 

GERMANY BROKE NO TREATY 

CAROLINE A. MASON, the author (Mrs. John 
H. Mason), has addressed a letter to the writer 
and given him permission to make such use of it as he 
pleases. It contains a succinct statement of the views 
held by very many people who feel obliged to condemn 
Germany, although they do it regretfully. To them 
the case is so clear that they cannot understand how 
anybody, German-born or not, can refrain from lifting 
his voice in stern rebuke. 

The writer understands Mrs. Mason's position, for 
he, too, was deeply troubled at the first news of Ger- 
many's invasion of Belgium; and, while he never lost 
his faith in the country of his birth, he believed that 
the German Government had made a grievous mistake. 
Later when more detailed reports reached him he 
changed his views, with a joy which only those will 
understand who have known a loved one accused of 
crime and great moral obliquity, and have found him, 
after anxious weeks of waiting, probably innocent; 
nay, more than innocent, because the original ac- 
cusation seemed to have been brought against him 
wantonly. 

A change of heart is not arguable, nor are argu- 
ments in place in reply to such a frank and generous 
letter as that of Mrs. Mason. The writer, therefore, 
contents himself with printing Mrs. Mason's letter 

162 



Germany Broke No Treaty 163 

and giving some of the reasons why he, and many 
with him, nevertheless, hold Germany to be innocent, 
and why they believe in the justice of her cause. 

1913 Park Road, Washington, D. C. 
Professor Edmund von Mach : 

Dear Sir — From time to time I have read your articles 
in defence of the practices and purposes of Germany in 
the present lamentable war. As a consequence, I am now 
yielding to the inclination to express to you what I am 
aware is the sentiment of a large number of readers. 

No one can fail to appreciate the restraint, the fine 
temper, and spirit with which you write. While certain 
advocates of the same cause do Germany incalculable 
injury by their lack of these characteristics, you surprise 
the public by your demonstration that even now a German 
can keep his temper. Because you, better than others, can 
grasp our point of view, I venture to think it may not be 
wholly useless to write frankly concerning these issues as 
Americans intimately and veritably regard them. 

Let me say, then, that, with all your loyalty of intention 
and acumen in argument, these various attempts of yours 
to justify Germany in re Belgium, must remain fruitless. 
This is for a basic reason and one which nothing can 
change. 

You remember Emerson's " What you are thunders so 
loud that I cannot hear what you say " ? What Germany 
has done in obvious and avowed violation of faith, honor, 
and, above all, of humanity, is so monstrous that an ocean 
of words can never wash it from the memory of mankind. 
With every new revelation of her bitter oppression of the 
Belgian people, the deeper grows her moral isolation in 
Christendom, whose fundamental laws, whether technical 
or not, she has cynically ignored. 

Those of us who have loved and trusted the German 
people in better times are listening, but in vain, for one 
voice .from within to redeem her infamy of unanimous 
consent to her deeds. What would we not give if a voice 
like yours should be lifted in stern rebuke instead of in 
defence of your nation's course? Then faith that Ger- 
many's conscience was not dead would again flicker into 
Hfe. 

May I in all sincerity speak to you of my own expe- 



164 Germany's Point of View 

rience? This not because of any importance on my own 
part, but because I know it to be typical. I shall set down 
nothing on which you may not depend as simple truth. 

First of all, I simply cannot penetrate to any adequate 
reason for the mysterious transformation of Germany's 
whole Wesen. I know that thirty years ago she was not 
what she is today. 

In my girlhood I spent a year in Germany in study and 
travel. I imbibed a deep affection for the land, the people, 
the literature, traditions, customs, folklore, music. In 
Germany I received my earliest inspiration in authorship, 
and my literary work began with translation of Hermann 
Grimm's essays. Through the first twenty years of my 
married life my enthusiasm for all things German knew 
no abatement. During that time I did not travel in Europe, 
but ten years ago there began a series of visits to England, 
and more particularly to the Continent, on the part of my 
husband, myself, and our daughters. With these journeys 
began the rude shock of disenchantment as regards the 
people of Germany. They were not the people I had 
known. 

Traveling widely, often off the beaten paths, often with- 
out a man in our party, we have been treated with unfail- 
ing courtesy and consideration by those we have met, 
officials and otherwise, except by Germans. Astonished 
and chagrined, I have been forced to admit that the typical 
Teutonic men and women thus encountered are underbred, 
overbearing, noisy, eager to grasp every selfish advantage, 
ready to ride roughshod over the rights of others. A 
recently published book by Mr. Whitridge asserts that the 
Germans have become *' easily the most objectionable 
people to be seen in the inns and on the highways of the 
Continent." 

Twenty years ago I should have indignantly resented 
this statement; today I must admit that it is perfectly 
true in my own experience. 

If you have patience to read on, you will, I think, con- 
fess that I am justified in this conviction. I will mention 
three incidents of travel. 

In Sicily, last winter, we traveled from Syracuse to 
Girgenti — a long, hard day's journey. In our party were 
three ladies, one an invalid, and a gentleman. In the next 
compartment were two Germans with their wives, who ate, 
drank, laughed, and talked loudly all day, A week before 



Germany Broke No Treaty 165 

we had engaged rooms at the Hotel des Temples, two 
miles or more from the station of Girgenti. Arriving three 
hours late and well on towards midnight, in a cold, tor- 
rential rain, we were met by the hotel porter, who told us 
we were expected and a closed carriage was waiting for us. 
While we collected our luggage, the German party, who 
had traveled in the next compartment through the day, 
commandeered our carriage, the only one procurable, by 
what means, I do not know, and drove cheerfully away, 
not to the Hotel des Temples. 

The second incident occurred to my husband on a soli- 
tary walking tour over the Gemmi Pass. After a stiff 
morning's walk he entered the dining-room of a small 
mountain inn, where sat, at different tables, an English 
gentleman and a German officer. The latter had thrown 
his traveling case down in the middle of a small settle. 
In order to find a seat, my husband moved this case a 
few inches, whereupon the German officer sprang to his 
feet, with crimson face and glaring eyes and menace of 
physical force, and poured out upon him a storm of loud 
abuse, beginning with, " How dare you," etc. My hus- 
band was too astounded to defend himself ; but the Eng- 
lishman turned upon the German and sternly bade him 
stop, the only offender being the man who had placed his 
luggage where he had no right so to do. 

In the third instance which I care to mention, my 
daughter was, several years ago, obliged to travel alone 
by night from Paris to Dresden. Not wishing to take a 
sleeper, she chose a seat in a compartment reserved for 
ladies, which was occupied through the night by herself 
and a middle-aged Frenchwoman. My daughter was a 
girl of serious and dignified demeanor, but she was young 
and pretty. 

As the evening wore on, sounds of students' songs and 
loud revelry reached the ladies' compartment, and pres- 
ently there appeared in the corridor a group of German 
students, four or five. Discovering an unprotected girl, 
these young men stationed themselves at the door of the 
compartment, being careful not to be found within its limits 
and to disappear quietly on every approach of the guard, 
which approaches were infrequent. They carried on there 
(addressed to my daughter) a campaign of personal 
innuendo and ribald insult, combined with vulgar panto- 
mime which no one could witness without horror and 



i66 Germany's Point of View 

disgust. The Frenchwoman, terrified, went down on her 
knees and spent the night in prayer, which may have been 
consoHng to herself, but which left my daughter com- 
pletely alone to bear these brutal indignities, which were 
kept up until morning with efficiency. My daughter ought, 
no doubt, to have called the guard and insisted upon pro- 
tection, but she dared not do this, not knowing what form 
retaliation might take. It is perhaps no wonder that her 
hair whitened prematurely. 

Although we have traveled widely, no occurrences in 
the least parallel to these have been experienced by us, 
where the offenders were other than German. What is 
true of us is the common experience of travelers. 

Now, my contention is that the spirit shown in the 
above-mentioned instances of ill-usage was not the spirit 
of the Germany which my girlhood knew and loved. 

If, as the newspapers are fond of saying, the maxim, 
" Might makes right," has, as appears, become the watch- 
word of new Germany, can you give me any sufficient 
reason? You are at liberty to make such use of this letter 
as you please. I wish you would send it to some of your 
friends in Germany for answer, if you do not care to 
answer it yourself. It is written in absolute sincerity and 
good faith. 

Dec. 20, 1914- Caroline A. Mason. 

As regards Mrs. Mason's unpleasant experiences 
with German tourists it must be confessed that the 
latter have been a nuisance for some time. When a 
country grows rich suddenly some people are sure 
to call attention to themselves on account of their 
bad manners. German writers have been as outspoken 
in their condemnation of such a behavior as any. Said 
Dr. Paul Rohrbach in German World Policies: 

From whatever point of view one looks at the Germans 
abroad — granting, of course, some splendid exceptions — 
one is met by defects either of inner worth or of ability 
to make an active propaganda for the German idea. Need 
we refer to the embarrassing habits of the German tour- 
ists who go through the world in droves, with a minimum 
of toilet and a maximum of noisy talk ? 



Germany Broke No Treaty 167 

But. when one has acknowledged this unpleasant 
habit of many German tourists, one should add that 
the experience of Mrs. Mason's daughter is an excep- 
tion. The writer knows of many ladies, young and 
old, who feel absolutely safe in traveling about Ger- 
many unattended, his own youngest sister having often 
gone alone from the shore of the Baltic to Meran. 

As to the incident with the German officer, related 
by Mr. Mason, it is incomprehensible. In the first 
place German officers do not travel over mountain 
passes in uniform, nor are they in the habit of taking 
scoldings from strangers. If, therefore, Mr. Mason 
was thus rudely treated by a German, he must have 
made a mistake in identifying him as an officer. But 
since it was a German w^ho behaved in boorish fash- 
ion, most Germans and lovers of Germany would wish 
to apologize for that man's incivility. Incivility is 
never excusable, whether it takes the shape of a cold 
and insulting stare or of an excited torrent of words, 
as is not unusual with the emotionally quick Germans. 

The German temper, however, cools as quickly as it 
rises, and is no indication of the worth of the national 
character. It is a defect inherited from the past, which 
Germany has only very recently begun to outgrow. 
Doctor Rohrbach, however, was perfectly right when 
he told his people that the true worth of their char- 
acter would not become known to men of other nation- 
alities so long as their surface dealings with foreigners 
revealed the unpleasant relics of a narrow-minded 
past. And he was equally right when he said that 
the real Germany was very different from what such 
casual meetings with bad-mannered Germans led the 
foreigners to believe. His countrymen seemed to like 



-1 68 Germany's Point of View 

his frankness, for they read his books by the hun- 
dreds of thousands, and lovers of Germany have de- 
tected a notable abatement of the tourist nuisance 
in recent years. 

Mrs. Mason's chief contention against Germany, 
however, is the latter's treatment of Belgium in the 
present war. In advancing the views of those who 
differ from Mrs. Mason, the subject may be divided 
into several parts : Did Germany break a sacred treaty ? 
Did she commit a crime by violating the neutrality 
of Belgium even if no binding treaty had existed? 
Was she barbarous or unnecessarily cruel in conquer- 
ing Belgium? Is her present treatment of Belgium 
unjust and inhuman? 

As to the treaty of 1839, which is the only one 
which England or any pro-Ally has claimed to have 
been violated by Germany, the writer has convinced 
himself that it was void. Instead of arguing the case 
he prefers to outline the several steps taken in his 
investigation which has led to this conclusion. People 
interested in the subject may then check the accuracy 
of his deductions, and whether they agree with him 
or not, will realize that his conclusions are the result 
of an honest endeavor to discover the truth. 

The most convenient book in which the whole treaty 
can be looked up is Edward Hertslet's The Map of 
Europe by Treaty. The treaty was signed on April 
19, 1839, by Belgium on the one hand, and England, 
France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia on the other 
hand, and contains the following: 

Article VII. Belgium, with the limits specified in 
Articles i, 11, and iv, shall form an independent and per- 
petually neutral state. It shall be bound to observe such 
neutrality towards all other states. 



Germany Broke No Treaty 169 

This treaty, contrary to the general belief, contains 
no guarantee on the part of the five signatory Powers. 

On the same day another treaty was concluded be- 
tween Belgium and the King of Holland to regulate 
the important matters of carrying the separation of 
Belgium from Holland into effect. It contains prac- 
tically all the articles of the other treaty, including the 
neutrality article and adds a few other matters. 

Finally a third and very brief treaty was concluded 
on the same day, in which the sovereigns of the five 
signatory Powers of the first treaty declare "that the 
articles hereunto annexed and forming the tenor of the 
treaty concluded this day between his majesty, the 
King of the Belgians, and his majesty, the King of 
the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxemburg, are con- 
sidered as having the same force and validity as if 
they were textually inserted in the present act and 
that they are thus placed under the guarantee of their 
said majesties." 

The neurality article states that Belgium "within 
the limits specified in Articles I, II, and IV, shall form 
an independent and perpetually neutral State." The 
Belgium there mentioned was a small state of com- 
paratively meagre resources. It is not the same Bel- 
gium which today is one of the richest colonial em- 
pires, owing to the incorporation of the Congo into 
the state. 

If for any reason Belgium should have wished to 
throw off, not only in fact but also openly, the tutel- 
age of the Great Powers, she could have claimed 
that the consent of the Powers to incorporate the 
Congo into her body politic had altered her limits. 
The Powers themselves had destroyed the Belgium 



170 Germany's Point of View 

of Article VII, which was bound to be a neutral 
state. 

In 1867 France proposed to Prussia that the latter 
should consent to the former's annexation of Belgium. 
Prussia did not consent, and Napoleon's plan miscar- 
ried. On the very face of it the treaty is binding on 
all the signatory Powers or on none. France's pro- 
posal nullified her share in the treaty, and the deli- 
cate question arises : " Was the treaty nullified by 
France's proposal, but did it come to life again when 
the proposal was not carried out?" When France 
offered to annex Belgium she did not believe that there 
was a treaty in her way, because she looked upon 
the 1839 treaties as having aimed at the separation of 
Belgium from Holland, and this separation having 
been carried out a generation ago, their usefulness had 
been outlived. 

In 1870, during the Franco-Prussian War, England 
wished to secure the neutrality of Belgium, and nego- 
tiated two identical treaties, in which she promised to 
fight by the side of Prussia against France or vice 
versa in case the one country or the other invaded 
Belgium. These treaties were to remain in force 
until one year after the treaty of peace between 
France and Prussia and thereafter the neutrality of 
Belgium, so far as high contracting Powers (England, 
France, Russia) were concerned, should rest as here- 
tofore on the treaty of April 19, 1839. 

These new treaties were vehemently debated in Par- 
liament, and quotations from Mr. Gladstone's speeches 
are given both in favor of and against the theory that 
he held the treaties of 1839 ^o be invalid. Some who 
have read these speeches (and not only the recently 



Germany Broke No Treaty 171 

published extracts) believe that Mr. Gladstone con- 
sidered the time inopportune to decide the question of 
validity, and purposely spoke vaguely on both sides. 
The opposition, voiced by Mr. Osborne, was more 
positive. He said: 

This treaty is entirely superfluous, if the treaty of 1839 
is worth anything at all. In the eyes of Austria and 
Russia that treaty is entirely superseded by this. You 
have struck a blow at that treaty which you can never 
put in the same position again. 

The Government argued that the reference to the 
treaty of 1839 at the end of the new treaties should 
meet these objections, but Mr. Osborne reasoned that 
this was not so. If five Powers enter an agreement 
by which all are bound equally and on even terms, 
three cannot make a new treaty among themselves 
on the same subject without releasing the other two 
of all obligations. Since the earlier treaty bound all 
alike or none, the remaining three could no longer 
claim that it was valid when their own action had 
dropped out two of the original signatories. 

From all these considerations the validity of the 
treaty of 1839 ^t the present time has seemed to be 
at least doubtful ; nor does this take into consideration 
the fact that the treaty was signed by Prussia, and that 
Prussia in 1871 surrendered, so far as her foreign 
relations were concerned, her sovereignty to the Con- 
federation of German States known as the German 
Empire. Germany, in other words, has never been 
a party to these treaties of 1839. 

Let us, however, assume that a competent court 
should nevertheless overrule all these objections, and 
declare that the treaties of 1839 continued in force 



172 Germany's Point of View 

on August I, 19 14, then one other pomt deserves 
attention. Article VII reads : " Belgium shall be 
bound to observe such neutrality towards all other 
states." The guarantee, moreover, quoted above if 
valid v^ould have been equally binding on every one 
of the five signatory Powers. Belgium, however, 
has not treated the several Powers alike, but has 
looked upon some as prospective allies and upon others 
as prospective enemies. In extenuation it has been 
claimed that events have shown that Belgium was 
justly suspicious of Germany, and that she had the 
right, therefore, of discussing precautionary measures 
with other Powers. Records of such discussions have 
been found and published. Some people have errone- 
ously called them treaties, which, of course, they are 
not. They do, however, show that England was put 
in possession of the military secrets of Belgium. 

A change in European politics might have taken 
place. As Sir Edward Grey himself announced re- 
cently, Belgium feared an invasion from England more 
than from anyone else in 1913. Suppose — just for 
the sake of argument — that England had invaded 
Belgium, would Germany have been bound by the 
treaty to come to the assistance of Belgium? Would 
she have been obliged to fight against an enemy who 
knew all the military secrets of Belgium? The writer 
believes that she would not have been obliged to do 
so. The action of Belgium in giving away her mili- 
tary secrets to one Power — that is, treating it differ- 
ently from the others and to the disadvantage of the 
others in case of war — released the others from any 
obligation under the treaty. Or to put it more suc- 
cinctly, it voided the treaty. 



Germany Broke No Treaty 173 

The writer strongly urges the reading in full of the 
treaties of 1839, Napoleon's offer of annexation, Bis- 
marck's refusal, the treaties of 1870, the discussions in 
Parliament on these treaties, and the documents found 
in Brussels, and he is confident that the reasonable- 
ness of the assumption will be granted that no valid 
treaty bound Germany to respect the neutrality of 
Belgium. 

To bring up an obsolete treaty as a valid pretext 
for going to war against Germany seemed so pre- 
posterous to the German chancellor that he charged — 
this is Mr. James A. Peterson's explanation in the 
Living Church, January 2, 1915 — the British ambas- 
sador with going to war for "a scrap of paper." It 
was not Germany who dragged the sacredness of 
treaties into the dust, who flippantly referred to a valid 
treaty as "a scrap of paper." On the contray, it was 
England, the Germans believe, who showed her con- 
tempt for honorable treaty obligations. She had signed 
the Hague Conventions guaranteeing the rights of 
neutrals in case of war on land, but she had not 
ratified them, and while, therefore, not bound by them, 
could claim that she approved of them — until the test 
came. The same was true of the Conference of Lon- 
don. She had invited the nations to it, she was willing 
to enjoy the credit of being the leader in humane 
proposals for the conduct of war. But she did not 
ratify them and when the test came, she renounced 
them. 

It was exactly the same with the treaty of 1839. 
She had been unwilling to declare it either valid or 
invalid. For years military experts in Europe, both 
French and German, have talked of the necessity of 



174 Germany's Point of View 

striking a blow through Belgium, and England never 
raised her voice in protest nor pointed to an existing 
treaty. When Sir Edward Grey was charged by the 
Belgian Government in 19 13 that England intended 
to be the first to invade Belgium, Sir Edward, in his 
reply published by himself, made no reference to an 
existing treaty, but contented himself with pointing 
out that such an action would be unwise. 

Who shows a greater disregard of sacred obliga- 
tions, he who calls an invalid treaty "a. scrap of 
paper," or he who elevates ''a scrap of paper" to the 
rank of a sacred treaty, and relegates the conventions 
of the Hague Conference — which were adopted at 
his own eager request — and the conclusions of the 
Conference of London — for the humaneness of which 
he had been willing to receive praise — to the level 
of "scraps of paper"? 



( ( 



CHAPTER XIV 

THE STRAIGHTFORWARD CONDUCT OF GERMANY 

WOULD you condemn Germany for going 
through Belgium," an American statesman 
was asked the other day, " if there had been no vaHd 
treaty in existence which forbade it?" To which he 
repHed substantially as follows : " I should not con- 
demn her in the sense in which I have condemned her 
in my public statements, but I should say ' she did 
wrong.' " 

This is exactly the view of the German chancellor, 
and it is the view also of the writer. People who 
wish to form a correct opinion on the subject should 
separate the various questions and judge each one 
separately, just as they would like to have their own 
cases judged in a court of law if they v/ere accused by 
an enemy of criminal behavior. The treatment of 
Belgium during and after the conquest is a different 
question from the one which treats of the right and 
wrong of the invasion in the first place. 

The various steps of the investigation which have 
led the friends of Germany to doubt the validity of 
the treaties of 1839 were discussed in the previous 
chapter, where readers were urged to study these 
points and to check the inferences drawn from them. 
The writer himself feels the more confident in his 
belief that the treaties had become void, since he has 
not yet found a single authority on international law 

175 



176 Germany^ s Point of View 

willing to stake his reputation on the statement that 
the treaties are valid and that in a proper court they 
would, without doubt, be declared to be so. As a 
matter of fact, this terrible charge against Germany 
of having disregarded a treaty and of having broken 
her plighted word has been believed in America on the 
unsupported say-so of England. There may be many 
things that can be said against Germany, but those 
who love her have always been proud in their belief 
that Bismarck was right when he said in the Reichstag 
amidst the thunderous applause of the delegates : " We 
Germans are in the habit of keeping our word." 
Caesar and Tacitus said that this was a habit of the 
Germans and the historians have said the same ever 
since. 

"But," it is asked, "why then did the German 
Chancellor say that Germany was doing wrong by 
going through Belgium? If there was no treaty to 
hinder her, she only did what all nations have done 
at some time or another. Quite recently a glowing 
account of Jackson's victory at New Orleans stated 
that his victory would have been impossible without 
the help of Captain Samuel Chester Reid, and that the 
latter, in order to delay the British fleet, had to violate 
the neutrality of Portuguese waters. The American 
occupation of Vera Cruz was a violation of neutral 
territory, since no war had been declared. Japan and 
England recently violated the neutrality of China. 
France and England have violated, and have apologized 
for violating, the neutrality of Switzerland on their 
raids from the air on the German Zeppelin sheds. (If 
their bombs had hit their marks, the apology to Swit- 
zerland would have done Germany much good !) Japan 



The Straightforward Conduct of Germany i jy 

invaded Korea without a declaration of war, and both 
Russia and Japan fought their war on the neutral 
territory of Manchuria. In short, if there was no 
treaty in force which forbade the invasion of Belgium, 
why should the Chancellor have said that Germany 
was doing wrong?" This is the answer: Because, he 
is, as Professor Albert Bushnell Hart said before the 
Economic Club of Providence, on January 8, a singu- 
larly honest, sincere, and upright man. The Chancellor 
on August 4, 1914, had no proofs which he cared to 
lay before the world to the efifect that Belgium was 
not sincere in her desire to remain neutral in the 
coming war. And until such proofs were presented 
Germany had no moral excuse for invading Belgium. 
Legally this step was exactly like the American 
occupation of Vera Cruz, which some believed to be 
necessary while others doubted it. Both steps were 
wrong, and the German Chancellor had the courage 
to say so. The American invasion of Vera Cruz very 
fortunately was not followed by war. The Belgian 
invasion was accompanied by an ultimatum and war 
ensued. 

There was at that moment only one Power that 
could have prevented the war, and Americans of Ger- 
man birth will always regret that this one Power, their 
new home, took no steps to this efifect. If America 
had boldly said to Germany : " Take back your troops 
and your ultimatum, you are breaking The Hague 
conventions, which you and I have ratified," and 
Germany had replied : " Belgium is no longer neutral, 
for I have unimpeachable proof that France intends 
to attack me through Belgium, with the latter's con- 
sent " ; and if America had then said : " Show me your 



178 Germany's Point of View 

proofs/' and had said to England: "You are on the 
spot, and while you have not ratified The Hague con- 
ventions concerning the rights and duties of neutrals, 
you say that the treaty of 1839 binds you to defend 
the neutrality of Belgium. Authorize me to tell Ger- 
many that her fear of a French attack, through Bel- 
gium, is vain, because you will come to her assistance, 
if France should move into Belgium" — if America 
had done this, it would have called the bluff either of 
Germany or of England, and might have prevented the 
war. 

Germany has since then published a number of 
documents which she claims to have found in Belgium 
and which prove that Belgium was de facto no longer 
neutral. If these proofs are accepted as correct, Ger- 
many's action, which the Chancellor called wrong, 
becomes excusable. It is, however, asking a good deal 
of those whose sympathies are on the other side to 
believe the unsupported statement of the German Gov- 
ernment, and to have the same confidence in the 
Chancellor's honesty as the people have who know him. 
No fault, therefore, can be found with those who 
prefer to rest the case for the present with the Chan- 
cellor's confession of wrong. 

They should, however, realize that even if this con- 
fession of wrong must stand, the condemnation due 
for it is not more than has been due in recent years 
to practically all the nations of the world, including 
America. A wrong is not a greater wrong because its 
unfortunate results come more forcibly home to us; 
nor will the just man demand a heavier punishment 
for his enemy than for his friend, if both have broken 
the same law. 



The Straightforward Conduct of Germany 1 79 

In view of these observations the criticism (see Mrs. 
Mason's letter in the previous chapter) that Germany 
had " cynically ignored the fundamental laws of Chris- 
tendom, whether technical or not," can have no refer- 
ence to the actual entry of Germany into Belgium, 
but must refer to her conduct in and treatment of 
Belgium. "What would we not give," says Mrs. 
Mason, " if a voice like yours should be lifted in stern 
rebuke instead of in defense of Germany? Then 
faith that Germany's conscience was not dead would 
again flicker into life." 

Mrs. Mason and the majority of sincere people shar- 
ing her views have formed their opinions on the ac- 
counts of German atrocities which they have read 
either in the papers or in private letters from friends 
in countries hostile to Germany. If the writer had 
believed these stories, including the so-called official 
reports, or if he had believed only a small part of them, 
he would have raised his voice in protest long ago. 
He is, however, convinced that they are false, and that 
this can be proved. 

On November 20, 1914, a Boston physician, Dr. 
Robert W. Lovett, called on the writer on a special 
errand. Dr. Lovett had received a cablegram from 
his personal friend. Lord Fisher, the British First Sea 
Lord of the Admiralty, who requested his American 
friends to join in a petition to President Wilson. He 
had sent them a copy of the message cabled to the 
President, in which the President of the United States 
was urged to ask the German Government as a per- 
sonal favor to him (Mr. Wilson) to release on parole 
Admiral Neald and Mrs. Neald. Mrs. Neald is a 
daughter of Lord Fisher. Both were detained in 



i8o Germany's Point of View 

Germany. The Boston friends of Lord Fisher believed 
that Mr. Wilson, owing to his declared stand of neu- 
trality, would be unable to act, and that anyhow the 
proper way of appeal was to the German Government 
directly. They, therefore, requested the writer to 
bring the sad case (both Admiral and Mrs. Neald are 
in poor health, the latter being threatened with blind- 
ness) to the attention of the representatives of the 
German Government in this country. Knowing that 
the German Government would wish to be informed 
of the circumstances the writer was glad to forward 
the information given him, which was accompanied 
by the following letter, published here with the consent 
of the sender: 

My Dear Dr. Von Mach : / 

I beg to enclose the promised letters, and I am prepared 
to promise you that if Admiral Neald's request is granted 
I will do my utmost to secure in the press the widest 
publicity in acknowledgment of Germany's action. 

With many thanks for your courtesy in listening to me, 
I am, Very sincerely yours, 

Boston^ Nov. 20. (Signed) Robert W. Lovett. 

Two days later Dr. Lovett was informed that his 
request had been acted upon favorably by the repre- 
sentatives of the German Government in America and 
forwarded abroad. On December 2 the following 
item appeared in the press : 

On personal representations from President Wilson, 
through Ambassador Gerard, Germany has released Ad- 
miral Neald, retired, of the British navy, and his wife, 
who were military prisoners at a German health resort. 

Admiral Neald, a son-in-law of Admiral Fisher, First 
Lord of the British Admiralty, was left at a German spa 
during the exodus of refugees at the beginning of the war. 
It was reported that he and Mrs. Neald were held as mili- 



The Straightforward Conduct of Germany i8i 

tary prisoners in retaliation for the detention in England 
of a son of Admiral von Tirpitz of the German navy, 
captured in the engagement off Cuxhaven. President 
Wilson made representations on an appeal from the British 
ambassador here, and today Ambassador Gerard cabled 
news of the release of the Admiral and Mrs. Neald. 

The heading given this article read : " Germany 
Yields to Wilson." Dr. Lovett, realizing that this 
notice v^as inaccurate in several respects and that it 
did not " secure in the press the voidest publicity in 
acknowledgment of Germany's action," which he had 
promised, immediately obtained an introduction to the 
manager of the Associated Press, wrote to the State 
Department where the notice had been given out, and 
in every way tried to redeem his word, busy man 
that he is. He has been unable to induce the Asso- 
ciated Press to supplement their first erroneous despatch 
by another which should be just to Germany and call 
attention to the remarkable act of kindness of the 
German Government, which released the daughter of 
Lord Fisher because she was ill, and did not make 
her release dependent on any corresponding act of 
kindness to Germans in British detention camps. 

This incident is related to show that it is not easy at 
present to bring a story for general circulation into 
the American press from which a conclusion favorable 
to Germany could be drawn. Additional points of 
interest in connection with the Associated Press des- 
patch as it actually appeared are as follows : 

I. According to a reply from the State Department 
to Dr. Lovett, the original despatch from Ambassador 
Gerard was dated November 29. Why was it not 
given out until December 2? 



1 82 Germany's Point of View 

2. The telegram received at the State Department 
read : " In view of President's personal recommenda- 
tions orders have been given for release of Admiral 
Neald." 

3. The whole second paragraph, which claims that 
Admiral and Mrs. Neald were held as "prisoners of 
war " and in " retaliation " for the detention of the 
son of the German Admiral von Tirpitz, is contrary to 
fact. Admiral Neald, who is not yet sixty, was de- 
tained at Bad Nauheim at the outbreak of the war, 
while Mrs. Neald, was, of course, not held as a prisoner 
of war at all. The paragraph was added with the 
view of lessening any favorable comment the release 
of the admiral and his wife might excite. Who added 
it? Did the State Department falsify the news? Did 
the Associated Press falsify the news? Why were 
not only the local manager, but also the general man- 
ager of the Associated Press in New York unwilling 
to correct the wrong news they had sent out? 

4. Before placing implicit faith in the news they 
read, Americans of whatever sympathies should rea- 
lize that neither of the two great sources of their news- 
supply, the State Department and the Associated Press, 
are flowing today with their accustomed purity. 

It is immaterial for the argument in hand whether 
the managers of both sources are laboring under 
unusually difficult conditions or whether they could 
do better if they would. The fact remains that the 
searcher after the truth is obliged to realize that not 
all the news he receives is honest news. 

Why was ex-Premier Giolitti's second speech garbled 
and printed in America to show that Italy was pro-Ally 



The Straightforward Conduct of Germany 183 

and his first speech suppressed in which he said that 
not even the cynicism of a Machiavelli would have 
stooped so low as to believe that Italy could enter the 
war against her two allies, Germany and Austria ? 

Why was his second speech misrepresented to say 
that in 19 13 Austria and the Kaiser had been detained 
from undertaking an unjust expedition against Servia 
only by the greatest exertions on the part of Italy, 
when every well equipped newspaper office could have 
quoted from the British Annual Register for 1913 
these words : 

In foreign politics the greatest achievement of Germany 
this year was the prevention of a European war, which 
would in all probability have broken out if the Emperor 
William had not plainly declared on the one hand to 
Austria-Hungary that he would not support her should 
she be involved in a war with Russia as the consequence 
of an attack by her upon Servia, and on the other to 
Russia that if she attacked Austria-Hungary, notwith- 
standing her abstinence from active intervention in the 
Balkans, he would fight by the side of his Austrian ally. 

Why was it reported that Tom, Dick, and Harry 
shouted in the Italian Parliament for the Allies and 
against Austria, and why were the Italian papers not 
quoted which said that they were glad some delegates 
had committed this indiscretion because their treat- 
ment at the hands of their colleagues had shown how 
few people held such abandoned views? 

Why are individual Swedes writing anti-German 
articles in Lord Northcliffe's London papers quoted, 
while the almost unanimously German friendly Swed- 
ish press is not even mentioned in America? 

Why are the Swiss papers not mentioned in America 
unless they happen to contain an article which can 



184 Germany's Point of View 

be given an anti-German twist ? Why was the address 
of Spanish university professors, sent as a sign of 
unwavering confidence to their German colleagues, 
suppressed here? 

These are all questions which every honest man and 
woman should answer to his or her satisfaction before 
feeling justified in believing the accusations against 
Germany and disregarding the official German reports 
of investigation. The '' round robin/' too, which 
was signed by seven reputable American newspaper 
men and which exonerated Germany from charges 
of cruelty and brutality, should be given greater weight. 
At times it almost seems as if the glaring profusion 
of stories concerning German atrocities had blinded 
people just as the searchlights of an automobile will 
blind them for a time and render them incapable of 
seeing anything else. 

Tucked away in an inconspicuous place, a few 
papers of December 30, 1914, brought the following 
notice. It was printed as the last paragraph of a 
despatch from Washington, which was featured in 
these words : " Dum-dums made here can't be used by 
Allies." The notice itself read: 

State Department officials have also been informed by 
an American diplomat just back from Europe that he 
found no ground for charges that Belgians have been 
mutilated by German soldiers. 

Under ordinary conditions most papers, after having 
printed for weeks and months stories of mutilated 
Belgians, and having given credence to so-called 
" official " reports which made such charges, would 
have given this notice a prominent place under the 
caption " Germans in Belgium Exonerated." In years 



The Straightforward Conduct of Germany 185 

to come, after the passions have cooled, it will be one 
of the inexplicable mysteries of the age, why this was 
not done. People will realize that most atrocity stories 
were forged consciously or unconsciously, as that 
Scotch girl forged her two letters which purported 
having been sent by a Belgian priest. 

It may, however, be claimed that the Germans have 
been guilty of acts of cruelty, if not of atrocity. Know- 
ing the Germans as he does the writer does not 
believe this. Executions of civilians have undoubtedly 
taken place. This is most regrettable, but the moral 
guilt of Germany depends on the question whether the 
excesses of the Belgians demanded such a treatment 
at the hands of any army. A notice which appeared 
in the Socialist papers of Europe, and which is here 
quoted from the Vorwaerts of August 17, 1914, stated 
that M. Vandervelde, the Socialist member of the 
Belgian cabinet, had urged the Belgian Government to 
issue a proclamation asking the people to desist from 
their criminal excesses against Germany, but that his 
motion had been voted down. In some places local 
proclamations were issued and no tragedies ensued. 
An account of such proclamations which was given 
by a Belgian contributor to the Transcript in the fall 
of 19 14, was found, upon investigation, to have refer- 
ence only to proclamations issued by some local author- 
ities. If M. Vandervelde's suggestion had been adopted 
much sorrow might have been spared. 

In conclusion an address may be given which an 
American newspaper man delivered before the Ameri- 
can colony in Berlin shortly before Christmas, 19 14. 
Ambassador Gerard and Consul General Lay were 
present. The speaker was Lieutenant Colonel Edwin 



1 86 Germany's Point of View 

Emerson, who fought for his country m the Rough 
Riders during the Spanish War. He is a graduate of 
Harvard, ir^ the class of 1891, and has been a war 
correspondent for Collier s Weekly, Chicago Daily 
News, Westminster Gazette, Black and White, Le 
Monde Illustre, and last autumn was sent to Belgium 
by the New York World. He said : 

My activities in the war zone were naturally those of a 
neutral. I am here on leave of absence, and our American 
Government consequently has no official interest in my 
doings. The fact that I was a war correspondent from a 
neutral country made it possible for me to observe matters 
more freely and to draw more unbiased conclusions than I 
probably could have done in an official position. This 
brings me to the word " neutrality." We have heard much 
in recent months of the violation of Belgian neutrality. 
It is even said that this is the only reason why England 
is fighting; for England is, of course, the protector of the 
small countries, as the Boers, the Persians, and the Greeks 
know from their own experiences. Once even the Amer- 
ican colonies were small countries, and we Americans 
know how to appraise the English enthusiasm for ob- 
serving the rights of neutrals. In the years of our 
greatest trial — I mean our great Civil War, from 1861- 
1864 — the English sent several privateers to harass us. 
There was, especially, the famous "Alabama," who suc- 
ceeded, with English assistance, to dispose of our marine 
trade so completely that we have not yet recovered from 
this blow. 

And what is true of England is true of her dear allies. 
I was a war correspondent during the Russo-Japanese 
War, and I was present when the Japanese invaded the 
neutral state of Korea without first troubling to declare 
war, and when they proceeded to fight out the war in the 
likewise neutral province of Manchuria. Then nobody 
took the least notice of it. On the contrary, England did 
her best to support these flagrant violations of Chinese 
neutrality, just as she did the other day in the case of 
Tsingtao. When Germany does anything like this it is 
" violation of neutrality " ; when England does it it is 
" fair play." 



The Straightforward Conduct of Germany 187 

When I was in Belgium recently I learned from my 
own observation that the so-called Belgian neutrality 
toward Germany did not amount to much — it was nothing 
but lurking hostility. 

I do not know whether it is known here that it is due 
to the American ambassador in Brussels that nothing 
similar to what happened in Louvain took place in 
Brussels. The mayor, Mr. Marx, had actually given 
orders to the citizens' garde to shoot on the Germans, 
when our ambassador urged them not to do it. Our 
ambassador also told me that Field Marshal von der Goltz 
as governor general of Belgium had made a splendid 
impression upon him, and that the official business was 
being carried on better under him than under the Belgian 
Government. 

In Louvain, unfortunately, we had no American consul 
who could have prevented the people from shooting on the 
Germans from their houses. In Louvain itself I was 
told by the inhabitants that the shooting had been a ter- 
rible mistake. They would never have done it, the people 
of Louvain told me, if they had not received a secret 
message from Antwerp that the garrison of Antwerp had 
been successful in an extensive sortie, that the Germans 
were routed and fleeing toward Louvain. When toward 
evening a small company of footsore German soldiers 
chanced to pass that way, the ill-informed people of 
Louvain believed they had to do with parts of the scat- 
tered and badly beaten German army, and so began to fire 
on them. 

Let me add here as a man versed in military matters 
that if I were in a war I should give orders to act exactly 
as the Germans did in Louvain, if hostile inhabitants were 
treacherously shooting upon my soldiers. I ask you, was 
this not the customary procedure of the American soldiers 
in the Philippines ? 

As a writer, I regret, of course, very much that the 
library of Louvain, which was historically valuable, was 
burned. In war, however, fire and sword are at work, 
and very regrettable losses occur everywhere and among 
all people who fight. The English burned our library in 
Washington during our war with them in 1814, and I 
myself happened to be present in Vera Cruz, this spring, 
when our American marines completely destroyed the very 
valuable library of the Mexican Naval Academy. 



1 88 Germany's Point of View 

Mr. Emerson then showed and described a number 
of pictures, and continued: 

After these pictures of humaneness and kindness shown 
by the German soldiers to hungry children in Belgium 
you will know what to think of the much-heralded bar- 
barism of the German Huns. Impartial students of his- 
tory, I assure you, would find it difficult to believe that a 
highly civilized nation which up to last August had pro- 
duced a number of the most eminent thinkers, scholars, 
explorers, poets, statesmen, and countless benefactors of 
the human race, should suddenly have changed into cruel 
Huns after August 4. At the instigation of the enemies 
of Germany you can read today in the foreign press stories 
of every kind of cruelty, brutality, and immorality-com- 
mitted by the German officers and soldiers. 

I am only one witness, but I should like to testify to 
what I have seen with my own eyes. I was, all told, more 
than one month in the war zone, and I have seen countless 
prisoners and have spoken to many of them perfectly 
freely and without the intervention of the German guards. 
There was not one who complained of being inhumanly 
treated by the Germans. Nor did I see any officer or 
soldier commit a brutal act against any helpless person 
whatsoever. During all this time I did not see a single 
intoxicated soldier, although there is plenty of the best 
wine to be had near the French front. 

While I was in Belgium and in the north of France I 
have had countless friendly interviews with Belgian and 
French women and young girls. Not one ever complained 
to me that German soldiers had maltreated her or any of 
her countrywomen. This was the more remarkable be- 
cause the Belgian and French women of the districts 
which have suffered by the war hate the Germans from 
the bottom of their hearts and are not at all backward 
when they are talking to neutrals. 

When I was in Belgium people were talking a good 
deal of what they called a famine. I traveled in my 
automobile all through Belgium, this way and that way, 
but I found nowhere the actual hardships of a famine. 
In certain localities, where no more grain could be bought, 
and where the cattle had been lost or killed, the Germans 
distributed bread and other food directly to the inhabit- 
ants, as you saw from the pictures I showed you. 



The Straightforward Conduct of Germany 189 

As regards the generally good conditions under the 
German administration, I was actually astounded. I have 
been through many wars, and I can assure you that the 
people of Cuba during our war there with Spain, and the 
people of Nicaragua during the American campaign last 
year, suffered much more hunger and distress than the 
Belgian people are suffering today. 

If in the future it should appear, as all friends of 
Germany hope it may, that Edwin Emerson and the 
official German reports are right, and that German 
soldiers far from falling below the standard of warfare 
as carried on by the people of Western civilization 
have actually risen above it, American public opinion 
will do justice to them and with wonted generosity 
make good the mistake which, under existing condi- 
tions, it was almost impossible to avoid. Being fully 
convinced of this, the lovers of Germany and America 
and progress do not altogether regret the unfortunate 
turn which the universal sympathy for the sufferers of 
the war has taken, for without this turn people would 
not have realized, any more now than in former 
instances, how terrible are the horrors of war. Arma- 
ments alone do not preserve peace. They may be 
needed, but they must be supplemented by a different 
attitude of mind than characterized the several nations 
of Europe. Intemperate speech, suspicion of one's 
neighbors, and insufficient confidence in the unvarying 
justice of one's own desires — these were the real 
causes of the war. The attitude of mind which can 
preserve peace when the passions are high is not to 
be had for the asking. It is of slow growth. The old 
motto : *' In times of peace prepare for war," has 
played the world false. Let America, therefore, adopt 
a new motto, or rather a modification of the old one: 
" In times of peace prepare to avoid war." 



CHAPTER XV 

THE ENGLISH WEB OF CALUMNY 

LOTHAR DE BUNSEN, a cousin of Sir Maurice 
de Bunsen, who was the British ambassador in 
Vienna at the outbreak of the war, lives in Scar- 
borough. A few days before the attack on Scarbor- 
ough by the German warships he wrote a letter to his 
kinsfolk, Dr. and Mrs. Ernest F. Henderson of Bos- 
ton and Monadnock, which contains this sentence : 

Here we have continual scares of invasion — much to 
the joy of Bernard and Ronald. The whole coast is an 
armed camp and one does not know what will happen. 

Compare this with Sir Henry Luce's communication 
to the Nation of January 14, which said — referring 
to the raid on Scarborough : 

So far from the nation being terrorized by this attack 
on defenceless towns, with the concomitant circumstance 
of the slaughter of civilians, including women and chil- 
dren, the result has been a distinct incentive to recruiting. 

There can be no doubt that Mr. Lothar de Bunsen 
knew what he was talking about when he said that 
" the whole coast " was " an armed camp," and that 
Sir Henry Luce and other newspaper men who en- 
larged on the fact that Scarborough was defence- 
less, were mistaken. The realization that they have 
been sending out falsehoods will come as a shock to 
these gentlemen when they discover — perhaps not 
until after the war — that their own Government has 

190 



The English Web of Calumny 191 

connived in the spreading of erroneous information. 
In their defence it may be said that they have few 
or no opportunities at the present time to ascertain 
the truth. But the respectable American magazines 
v^ho add the weight of their authority to these false- 
hoods by publishing them are more fortunately situ- 
ated, and it is greatly to be hoped that they will not 
hereafter permit their sympathies to blind them against 
the truth. 

All over the country thoughtful people have begun 
to see through the web of calumny which the British 
Press Bureau has endeavored to spin about Germany, 
and even the most prominent are no longer diffident 
in expressing their views. The late Curtis Guild, 
ex-governor of Massachusetts, sent the writer a per- 
sonal letter, from which the following paragraphs are 
quoted : 

My Dear Doctor : 

The attittide of the United States must and should be 
neutral. Neutrality, however, in my opinion, does not 
consist in attacking one belligerent and defending the 
other. You will not blame me, of course, for a warm 
affection for a country where I have been treated with the 
greatest kindness and courtesy, shown me in Russia. I 
have no objection, however, to being quoted as a witness 
to the courtesy and magnanimity often shown by Germany 
and Austria to their prisoners. 

The son-in-law of Lord Fisher, the first sea lord of the 
Admiralty, was detained as a prisoner of war in Germany. 
The condition of his health was such that through Amer- 
ican friends representations were made to the imperial 
German Government petitioning for his release. Dr. 
Robert W. Lovett, my college chum, was the prime mover 
in the case, but I had something to do with it. The 
German Government, with great magnanimity, released 
on parole Admiral and Mrs. Neald. 

I was personally called upon at an earlier date in regard 



192 Germany's Point of View 

to a Scottish member of Parliament and his son, who were 
caught in the network of war at an Austrian watering- 
place. They were non-combatants, but the son had been 
most active as a soldier in the Boer War. There being no 
British ambassador, of course, at Vienna, the case was, 
through American friends, brought to the attention of 
the American ambassador at Vienna, in whose hands 
English affairs now are. Without any delay or interposi- 
tion of red tape these two Englishmen were sent on their 
way rejoicing. 

Your appeal for fair play the other day was so sincere 
and so earnest that, though I have tried to keep myself 
neutral except so far as my sympathies for the wounded 
and starving in the European country (Russia) I know 
best are concerned, I have no objection to your quoting me. 

The war is bad enough as it is without attempts by any 
persons to make out any of those engaged as human 
monsters. Very cordially yours, 

(Signed) Curtis Guild. 
Boston, Jan. ij, 1915- 

" Human monsters ! " This is, however, the very 
picture which some people have drawn of the Ger- 
mans in Belgium, and which other, and generally 
very good people, have repeated, because in the good- 
ness of their hearts they have not believed it possible 
that anybody could invent such terrible charges. 

Germany is the only belligerent in the western the- 
atre of hostilities who is carrying on the war in the 
enemy's country. This assures her many material 
advantages, but naturally increases also the resentment 
of the population of the occupied districts. In addi- 
tion to the horrors of war, men killing men, there are 
the hardships of war, men eating up the stores of 
food, and millions trying to subsist where heretofore 
only thousands found their livelihood. During the 
first enthusiasm, when the people's own troops pass 
along on what is confidently expected will be a march 



The English Web of Calumny 193 

of victory, the people gladly feed them from well- 
filled larders. But when the soldiers pass the same 
way again on a hurried retreat, and the enemy entrench 
themselves, and through weary months are forced to 
remain in the conquered territory, then the giving 
becomes a burden, even if the food is paid for by the 
victorious commanders. Despair takes hold of the 
non-combatants, and they blame not war and conse- 
quently all who play this gruesome game, but the par- 
ticular participant in it whose prowess or lucky star 
has made him the master of their district. This is 
natural. Outsiders, however, who refuse to let their 
sym.pathies blind their judgment, should distinguish 
between the necessary hardships of war and those 
which a humane conqueror could avoid. 

In the present case even friends of Germany have 
been not a little troubled by some practices which 
have seemed to be indefensible. While America is 
generously pouring out food, money, and supplies, 
the papers alm.ost weekly report new levies of money 
or supplies made by the Germans in the very districts 
which America is called upon to feed. Terrible ac- 
counts of suffering continue to arrive from Belgium, 
while no official contradictions of the excessive Ger- 
man demands seem to be issued. At this distance 
it is impossible to argue the case. A few general 
observations, however, may be of help for those who 
wish to form their own conclusions. 

A community may be perfectly well able to make 
a substantial contribution and yet exhibit among its 
poorer people an appalling degree of suffering. Every- 
body will agree that this should not be so, but it is 
so. During an exceedingly cold night in New York, 



194 Germany's Point of View 

a few weeks ago, the lodging houses were so full that 
in a particular house four hundred and twenty-eight 
men were herded into one room. They were so tightly 
packed that lying or sitting down was impossible for 
anyone. Every piece of furniture had been removed 
to gain space. The men stood up all night, each one 
supported by those about him, and thus they — slept! 
Many were very hungry. This happened in New 
York, the richest community of the United States, 
which is able to pay millions of dollars each year in 
taxes. 

Many of the so-called " indemnities " levied by the 
Germans in Belgian cities are taxes. When an army 
occupies a city or a district it becomes responsible 
for its administration, and by international law has 
not only the right but also the duty of collecting the 
taxes and disbursing them as the needs of the place 
demand. In Brussels, for instance, and doubtless in 
other cities also, the Belgian policemen and other civil 
employees have been retained at their former salaries. 
Why should these salaries not be paid by the people 
for whose benefit they are disbursed? Often the 
Germans found an empty municipal exchequer v/hen 
they arrived, the previous government having fled with 
the available cash. In such cases an immediate con- 
tribution became necessary, which was as annoying 
to the Belgians as it is to anybody to have to pay his 
taxes twice because the town treasurer had run away 
with the first levy. 

In addition to these perfectly legitimate contribu- 
tions, the German commanders have occasionally levied 
what has been called punitive contributions. It is 
these extraordinary taxes which at this distance neither 



The English Web of Calumny 195 

the friends of Germany can undertake to defend, nor 
her opponents claim to be sufficiently well informed 
to condemn. 

On January 16 the Belgian Legation in Washing- 
ton issued the following notice : 

According to a cable received by the Belgian Legation 
today, the city of Courtrai, Belgium, has been fined ten 
million marks (about $2,500,000) by Germany, not for 
disobedience, but for obeying the orders of German 
commanders. 

The circumstances are as follows : Two German officers, 
Commander Maxerman and Commandant Pschors, arrived 
at Courtrai and ordered the municipal authorities to have 
all arms deposited in the Tower of Broel, under threat of 
a heavy penalty. In compliance with these. instructions, all 
arms were deposited in the place named. 

Then there arrived a new German commander, Com- 
mandant van Kneesebeck, who goes to the Tower of Broel, 
sees the arms in the place where the other German com- 
manders had ordered them put, and fines the city of 
Courtrai ten million marks, under pretext that it is a 
clandestine deposit of arms, in spite of the fact that the 
order of his predecessors to place the arms in the Tower 
of Broel was well known to everybody and was even 
placarded on the walls of Courtrai. 

There are in Courtrai at present no Belgian officials 
who could officially report this incident to M. Habe- 
nith, the Belgian minister in Washington. It is, there- 
fore, based on private information. Those who are 
looking for injustice from Germany will believe it; 
others will doubt it, because it is too obviously a ridicu- 
lous act of oppression. It is here quoted as contain- 
ing an indication of conditions under which punitive 
contributions may be levied. If a community main- 
tains clandestine deposits of arms, the occupying 
Power has the right to punish it, and the most humane 
punishment is a fine. Such fines should be commen- 



196 Germany's Point of View 

surate not only to the degree of guilt, but also to the 
ability of the community to bear them. Looked at 
from this angle the levying of the contribution itself 
is no act of oppression, although it may become so 
when it is disproportionately large, or levied not for 
cause but on a pretext. Judged by the accounts of 
those who have actually been in Belgium, like Messrs. 
Irvin Cobb or James O'Donnell Bennett, there is not 
one scintilla of truth in the assertion that Germany 
had unjustly wielded her power of levying punitive 
contributions. 

By all odds the most important and enlightening 
discussion of this subject was printed in the New 
York Times and Sun January 17. It was written by 
James O'Donnell Bennett in reply to Sir Arthur Conan 
Doyle. Unfortunately for Boston readers their own 
Sunday paper, which is syndicated with the Times, did 
not print this article. Add to this conscious policy of 
suppression practiced by some papers, the difficulty of 
obtaining authentic news from the war zone, and the 
neutral bias of the British censor in control of the 
cables, and it is not difficult to see that an erroneous 
picture of Germany's treatment of Belgium may have 
gained currency in many quarters. 

If Belgium is starving today to a greater degree 
than New York and Boston are starving, where thou- 
sands of people are out of work and hungry every day 
of the week, the fault does not rest with Germany 
but with England and incidentally America. England 
has avowedly begun a campaign of starving out her 
enemies. Contrary to all laws of humanity, and in 
defiance of international law, as interpreted by her 
own statesmen, England prevents shipment of food 



The English Web of Calumny^ 197 

from reaching not only the military forces but also 
the civil population of her enemy. And although 
America has recently addressed a note to her, she has 
fallen far short from demanding the respect which, 
in the interest of justice, England herself once de- 
clared neutral Powers should enforce. On December 
15, 1870, the London Times, then the official organ 
of the British ministry, declared: 

Germany might have refused to recognize the immunity 
of neutrals' goods in French ships or French goods in 
neutral bottoms, and no action can be conceived more 
injurious to neutrals, especially to those neutrals who 
possess regularly commissioned navies that can command 
the seas. Why has Germany refrained from this step? 
Simply because she is pledged by the Treaty of Paris to 
abstain from privateering, and she has a wholesome 
apprehension that neutral Powers would not tolerate a 
violation of the engagement. 

Does England's present conduct imply that an offi- 
cial man-of-war can do what a privateer should not 
do? Or that the United States does not possess a 
" regularly commissioned " navy, " that can command 
the sea?" Or that, because of her influential sympa- 
thizers in this country, she need not have "a whole- 
some apprehension that neutral Powers would not tol- 
erate a violation of the engagement?" Whatever her 
reasons may be, she has certainly not shown any 
" wholesome apprehension " that America would " not 
tolerate a violation " of her own interpretation of the 
rights of neutrals, and of the far greater rights of 
humanity, which demand that non-combatants be not 
deprived of their food supply. As a matter of fact, 
England, with the consent of the only great neutral 
Power who could force her to do right, has for months 



198 Germany's Point of View 

cut off the food supply from Germany, and conse- 
quently also from Belgium. Although Belgium has 
sacrificed herself to save France and England, the lat- 
ter are perfectly willing to see the Belgians starve. 
In their desire to starve the civil population of Ger- 
many they do not shrink from sacrificing the very 
lives of their plucky ally, Belgium. 

If tomorrow the United States Government should 
insist that food supplies for the civil populations of 
Germany, Austria, and Belgium should pass to these 
countries, there would be no further need for Belgian 
relief funds and committee. Give Germany the 
opportunity of feeding the hungry people in the dis- 
tricts occupied by her and she will do it as well as she 
has always fed her own poor, and for years has ban- 
ished destitution such as is known in London, Liver- 
pool, New York, and Boston from her own big cities. 

Such a result, however, would upset the anti-Ger- 
man propaganda in America which is drawing its 
sustenance from the appeals for sympathy which 
the accounts of Belgian distress cannot help produc- 
ing. The good people making these appeals often 
play, perhaps without knowing it, fast and loose with 
the truth, and doubtless are believed by many. To 
take only two instances: In his appeal for Belgium, 
Mr. E. Summer Mansfield, Belgian consul in Boston 
and chairman of the New England Belgian Relief 
Committee, makes this statement : " The entire popu- 
lation of Belgium is destitute and without govern- 
mental protection of any kind." That the first part of 
this assertion is very much exaggerated is shown not 
only by the accounts of reputable American news- 
paper men who are writing on the spot, but also by 



The English Web of Calumny 199 

the accounts in the impartial Swiss, Dutch and Scandi- 
navian press, not to mention the official German re- 
ports. It could be completely dispelled if Mr. Bryan 
chose to publish the reports of the American minister 
in Belgium. 

The second part of Mr. Mansfield's claim cannot, 
of course, be believed by anybody, for nobody yet has 
accused Germany of insufficiently "governing" any- 
where she has control. If people, nevertheless, should 
feel inclined to give credence to Mr. Mansfield, they 
should turn to Mr. Bennett's account, mentioned 
above, and read of the security felt by the inhabitants 
whenever German officials take charge of affairs. 

The same paper which contained Mr. Mansfield's 
overstatements brought an advertisement of the Ker- 
messe Flamande with this sentence in large type: 
" The Great Hall will represent the picturesque square 
of the ancient city of Louvain, destroyed by the 
Germans." 

It is undoubtedly true that many people still be- 
lieve that Louvain has been destroyed. Months ago 
the German Government published a map of Louvain 
in which the small part which was burned was shaded. 
Some American papers have reproduced this map; 
others have failed to do so, although it was offered to 
them. In addition, the German Government pub- 
lished a large picture divided into two parts. On the 
right was a photograph of the famous Town Hall 
of Louvain before the war and on the left one of the 
Town Hall after "the destruction of Louvain." The 
latter showed many debris and ruins in the foreground, 
and contained a legend to the effect that the ruins 
were those of the adjacent houses which had been 



200 Germany's Point of View 

dynamited by a German officer and his volunteer sol- 
diers, at the risk of their lives, to save the Town 
Hall when the fire had spread. In America generally 
only the half of the picture which shows the ruins 
in the foreground has been reproduced, and the ex- 
planatory legend has been — erased! A casual glance 
at the picture, therefore, conveys the impression that 
the Town Hall lies in ruins, and that what still is 
standing must be useless. 

And, finally, only one other reference to a news item 
of a few weeks ago which was adversely commented 
upon in many editorials, and increased the bitterness 
which many pro-Allies felt toward Germany. It was 
prominently reported that Germany had notified the 
neutral countries that she would no longer feel obliged 
to recognize the exequaturs granted by the Belgian 
governments to the consuls of these countries. This 
was interpreted to mean, so far as the United States 
are concerned, that Germany wished to be rid of the 
American officials in Belgium who, alone, could still 
be trusted to see that some degree of justice was se- 
cured for the oppressed people of Belgium. Later it 
was found, and inconspicuously reported by some, 
but not by all the papers, that Germany's note had no 
special reference to American officials in Belgium; 
for just as Mr. Mansfield, the Belgian consul in Bos- 
ton, is not a Belgian, but an American, so many for- 
eign consuls in Belgium are citizens of that country. 
Germany did not want to have her commercial busi- 
ness with the neutral countries, with whom she wishes 
to maintain friendly relations, carried on by consuls 
who are citizens of a hostile nation, and she gave a 
notice which enables her to cancel the exequatur — 



The English Web of Calumny 201 

any country has the right to do this and often does it 
— of any consul whose personal animosity tends to 
create ill feeling between her and other countries. 

Those whO' know Germany and her people do not 
need any arguments to make them feel convinced that 
the picture of inhuman and cruel Germans oppressing 
Belgium is erroneous ; but there are a great many peo- 
ple who do not know Germany, or, what is even worse, 
only half know her. To answer their several argu- 
ments in favor of their anti-German views is impos- 
sible; nobody, moreover, is ever convinced against 
his will. If these people, however, will take the pains 
of following out the various lines of investigation 
suggested in this and the chapters which treat of Ger- 
many and Belgium, they will at least see what has 
puzzled many of them, that it is possible to arrive 
honestly at opinions contrary to their own. 

This whole discussion began with a letter by Mrs. 
Caroline A. Mason, which appears in Chapter xiii, it 
may, therefore, fittingly be concluded with a reply 
received by Mrs. Mason, which is here published with 
the consent both of the sender and the receiver: 

Mrs. Caroline A. Mason : 

Dear Madam — After reading your letter to Dr. von 
Mach, as reprinted in his article in the Boston Transcript, 
I cannot refrain from writing to you in regard to what 
you say has been your experience in traveling in Ger- 
many. It surprised me very much, and I feel sure it is 
entirely exceptional. I myself have traveled alone from 
one end of Germany to the other, staying alone in hotels 
and traveling by night as well as by day. I have also 
taken extended walking trips in company with one other 
lady, often visiting places where no Americans had been 
before us, and I have never experienced anything but 
kindness and politeness. It is true that many German 



202 Germany's Point of View 

tourists of the bourgeoisie class have bad table manners, 
are noisy, and not altogether agreeable, but I have not 
found that they are inclined to molest or disturb other 
travelers; on the contrary, I could fill a volume with 
instances of true and delicate courtesy and helpfulness on 
the part of Germans of every rank and station, even the 
lowest. 

A statement made by the superintendent of the Sailors' 
Haven in Boston, an institution devoted to the welfare of 
all seamen of whatever nationality, may be worth quoting 
in this connection, even though it is not strictly to the 
point. He says that the German sailors are the cleanest 
set of men he has ever known. 

I was in Germany last summer, during the first month 
of the war, and I am one of many Americans who can 
testify to the extreme consideration with which we were 
treated under what no one can deny were most trying 
circumstances. The behavior of some Americans during 
that time was a painful and humiliating contrast and a 
poor return for the courtesy accorded them. 

I have the honor to be, Respectfully yours, 

(Signed) Amy T. Marston. 
loi Pinckney St., Boston, Jan. 12, 1915. 

This letter quotes Mr. King, the superintendent of 
the Sailors' Haven, who, therefore, was asked whether 
he was willing to have his statement that ''the Ger- 
man sailors are the cleanest set of men he has ever 
known," published. He replied, " Yes. And add ' the 
politest.' " 



CHAPTER XVI 

''la GRANDE PITIE DES EGLISES DE FRANCE'^ 

PROFESSOR BARRETT WENDELL has coupled 
his name with that of Mr. Whitney Warren, an 
American architect of French training, who has sent 
out an appeal after "a, four days' trip through the 
wasted towns of northern France and western Bel- 
gium, where he has seen the devastation wrought by 
the Germans." 

Both gentlemen are thoroughly familiar with France 
and must have known of the terrible destruction of 
beautiful French churches, relics of the best period of 
years at the behest of an anti-Christian French Govern- 
ment. Why did they shut their eyes to such vandalism, 
nor raise their voices in protest, or support M. Maurice 
Barres, academician and member of the French Parlia- 
ment, who in vain has tried to stem the tide? Why 
did they not exclaim in horror when in his official 
reply to M. Barres' protest, M. Beauquier uttered 
these blasphemous words in the French Chamber of 
Deputies, amid great applause and laughter: 

Since God is almighty, He can himself repair His 
churches and see to it that they are not destroyed. If 
He does not perform this miracle, it means that He does 
not wish to do it. And if He does not wish it, we must 
bow to His wilL 

Why did none of these lovers of ''la Belle Paris" 
tell their countrymen in America what was going on 

203 



204 Germany's Point of View 

throughout France since the passage of the anti- 
rehgion law a few years ago? Does it mean nothing 
to them when old baptismal fountains are ripped from 
their sites of centuries and desecrated by being placed 
as troughs in municipal piggeries ! And that in times 
of peace, with the approval and even at the command 
of the Government ! 

Not even the most destructive German shells, nor 
all of them combined, have probably done as much 
harm as the iniquitous French law which made the 
church buildings the property of the municipalities, 
which have the right to close them to the worshippers 
whenever the buildings are out of repair. The munici- 
palities are neither obliged to repair the buildings nor 
to permit the congregations to repair them. When no 
mass has been said in a church for some time the 
building may be condemned and be sold at auction. 
How this law works may be best illustrated by reciting 
the fate that befell the beautiful church of Grisy- 
Suisnes. It is here translated from M. Maurice Barres' 
book, La Grande Pitie des Eglises de France: 

One fine day late in the year 1909 the Abbe Auvray, 
curate of Grisy-Suisnes, which is the county seat of Brie- 
Comte-Robert, where the beautiful roses are, received a 
call from the local gendarme, who told him that he was 
instructed to report within forty-eight hours to the mayor, 
M. Triboulet, whether the curate wished to pay from his 
tithes for the necessary repairs in his church. The repairs 
were necessary and considerable : the roof was falling to 
pieces, and the official architect has estimated the cost to 
be 48,000 francs. M. Auvray had raised 25,000 francs, 
which he placed at the disposal of the municipality. More 
he could not do. . . . Six months passed, and then the 
gendarme returned to the priest, from whom he obtained 
the church keys, under some pretext. He brusquely placed 
them in his pocket, and notified the abbe that a proclama- 



"La Grande Pitie des Eglises de France" 205 

tion had been issued and the church building been declared 
to be no longer a consecrated building. Within a week 
notice appeared, signed by MM. Triboulet, mayor, and 
Paillard, sheriff, announcing the public sale of the " effects 
and the articles of divine worship." 

M. Henry Carbonelle of La Liberie, attended the 
auction. Listen to his account: 

When I arrived at Grisy I met on the road from the 
station three or four young country fellows who had 
secured some vestments of the boys' choir. They had put 
on the cassocks and placed on their heads the little 
red calottes. They were singing obscene songs which they 
accomxpanied with gestures of the same nature. 

In the church some fifty people were assembled about 
M. Paillard, who acted as auctioneer. He was conducting 
the business from the high altar, and stood on an impro- 
vised platform. Near him his clerk was taking notes of 
the prices. 

". . . fifteen francs for this confessional; 15 francs! . . . 

"— 16, 17, 18. . . /' 

The confessional was knocked down for 19 francs. 

A workman triumphantly carried away a chair at forty 
francs. A Virgin in stone, head and arms broken, brought 
401 francs, while an entirely new snowy-white St. Joseph 
barely found a purchaser at one franc and fifteen centimes. 
The Virgin, to be sure, dated from the fifteenth century. 
The organ sold for 115 francs. The clock, weight 500 
kilos, was knocked down for 800 francs. 

" That's too much," a dealer whispered by my side ; 
" one franc a kilo would have been enough." 

Night came: the candles were lighted. Some fellows 
who smoked made use of this opportunity to light their 
pipes or cigarettes. The auction proceeded : " Five francs 
fifty centimes for the Christ, thirty-five francs for the 
altar-rug, twenty-eight francs for the beadle's stick, 
twenty-five francs for a * Descent from the Cross.' "- But 
the night settled in darkness over the church, which looked 
like a junk-shop. It was necessary to stop. 

" I can't come tomorrow," the sheriff said, discussing 
the matter with the mayor. At last the mayor announced 
— and his voice thundered through the church — " The 



2o6 Germany's Point of View 

auction will be resumed next Saturday, on Christmas Day, 
at one o'clock." 

On my way to the station I met at the door of the 
saloon the merry young fellows of before, still dressed in 
the cassocks. But they had stopped singing. They were 
drinking. After the movable effects were sold, the build- 
ing itself was knocked down piecemeal, and then the 
demolisseurs arrived. A correspondent of I' Echo de Paris, 
M. Clair Guyot, saw them at work. 

" When I arrived," he said, " the walls had been torn 
down, and the stones been neatly piled up around what 
used to be the nave. The men were tugging with enor- 
mous levers at the foundations of a buttress which they 
were demolishing. Under their frequently renewed efforts 
the stones began to crumble, and at last the foreman 
shouted, ' There she goes ! ' " 

" I say," one of the workmen said, " that was hard work. 
Say what you will, those old fellows used to build well." 

" I'll bet," another replied, " that they did not think 
that some day people would dare to demolish their church. 
If they could see what's left of it now ! ..." 

During this conversation some children had come along 
on their way from school, also the gendarme. 

" Well, well," the latter said, " it seems to me you have 
done a good job since I was here last. Have you found 
anything ? " 

" Yes," said a laborer, " a bronze coin. It's very old, 
for the date is 1610." The "patron " was so pleased with 
it that he paid us the price of a couple of drinks. 

The " patron " was not, as you might think, the con- 
tractor. This " patron " was his honor the mayor. 

" That doesn't at all astonish me," the gendarme replied, 
" for he came here while you were at lunch, thinking that 
there might be something here, and poked about with his 
stick. By the way, have you looked into this hole? I'm 
sure it will contain something wonderful." 

One workman at once began to ply his pickaxe. The 
school children hid behind some stones for fear of being 
driven off. Under the blows of the pickaxe the pavement 
of the ancient nave gave way, the earth caved in, and 
some human bones appeared. Then, dropping their tools, 
the workmen hauled out what was left of those who had 
once received sacred burial in this church. The first thing 
to be lifted out was a skull which had been pierced by the 



''La Grande Pitie des Eglises de France'' 207 

pickaxe, and which was thrown far away; then a big 
breast and backbone, and at last some huge thigh bones. 

" This was a mighty chesty chap," one of the workmen 
said. "Ah, me ! the old fellow did not dream that we 
should haul him out again some day. Wait a moment. 
Let's make him dance a can-can ! " 

Then, holding between his knees the upper parts, he 
joined to them the thigh bones, and, when his work was 
well done, he moved the figure to and fro in rhythmical 
cadence, whistling a tune. The others laughed. 

I had enough, and fled. 

Where were the French-American architects then, 
and where the high-churchmen, who today are trying 
to make capital for their anti-German propaganda of 
the unfortunate damage done to some of the glorious 
monuments of art? Rheims, the beautiful, dearer 
probably to the Germans, who love not only art but 
religion, than to the French, was wantonly turned into 
a fortress. The French knew very well that it is 
impossible to fortify a place and to shoot at an enemy 
from Rheims without drawing also his fire upon 
Rheims. Mr. Warren Whitney's appeal would have 
rung truer, if years ago he had demanded that the 
fortress of Rheims be razed. And truer still, if he 
had joined M. Maurice Barres in his endeavor to save 
the churches of France, for Grisy-Suisnes is not the 
only place which stands today deprived of its old 
shrine. Let people read M. Barres' book, let them 
visualize the destruction wrought, and above all the 
blasphemous spirit in which it has been done. 

When the truth is known America will no longer 
waste her pity on a country which in a sacrilegious 
spirit has made war for years not only against the 
Christian religion, but against all religion. America 
does not care how a man worships, but she insists that 



2o8 Germany's Point of View 

the Deity be not profaned. To raze a beautiful old 
Gothic church out of spite to the sect which still 
wishes to worship there, and even more perhaps out of 
the desire to enrich the public coffers with the paltry 
sum the church and its sacred effects may bring at 
auction, this is so abhorrent to the average American 
that Messrs. Wendell and Whitney have wisely 
refrained from mentioning it. 

" Devastation wrought by the Germans ! " Indeed ! 
Why is the Cathedral of Rheims even' today undam- 
aged except its roof? Because it was Germans', and 
not Frenchmen, who were fired upon from the fortress, 
because with a self-control unparalleled in the annals 
of warfare, the Germans forbore to do what they had 
a perfect right to do when the French had made an 
observation point of the towers of the cathedral. In 
spite of all denials by the press, it is an established 
fact that the French so used the cathedral. 

There is many a monument in France and Belgium 
which owes its preservation to German care, devotion, 
and self-sacrifice, and to try to make capital of the 
destruction of other places is playing fast and loose 
with facts. There is not another nation which, under 
similar conditions, would have destroyed so little as 
the Germans. Would the French, whose artillery is 
shooting today on their own treasures, and who even 
in years of peace destroyed their own churches, have 
spared Rheims Cathedral? Or the English, whose 
records in Africa, Egypt, and India are known, who 
are today bombarding the coast towns of Belgium and 
the villages behind the German trenches, and who in 
1814 set fire to the White House and the Capitol, not 
because it was a military necessity, but wantonly ? Or 



'^La Grande Pifie des Eglises de France^' 209 

would even the Americans have been able to save 
Rheims when they failed, in their expedition to Vera 
Cruz, to save from destruction the valuable library 
of the Naval Academy ? Or the Russians, or any other 
nation save perhaps the Japanese? 

War is a terrible thing, and war carried on in the 
enemy's country will always let loose a horde of com- 
plaints against the victor. War cannot be carried on 
with kid gloves, and Germany is not, nor can she be, 
in the conquered territory, a gentle master. But she 
is just and humane, all hostile reports to the contrary 
notwithstanding. Nor can this be different, for the 
German army is a citizen army where no criminals or 
savages are admitted. This point cannot be over- 
emphasized, for it distinguishes the German army from 
all others. As early as October 27, 1914, the Niagara 
Falls, (N. Y.) Journal contained the following notice 
from Niagara Falls, Ontario: 

The military authorities have asked the police here to 
send all British subjects who appear in court to the 
Victoria Avenue armory if they desire to enlist. 

While no man with a criminal record is permitted 
to serve with the German army, the English have 
done much of their recruiting among culprits whose 
sentences were remitted if they were willing to enlist, 
whether or no they had previous records. This may 
account for the fact that a phrase which constantly 
appeared in the first English reports seems latterly 
to have disappeared: "The morale of our men is 
excellent." 

In spite of this there are not a few high-minded 
Americans who, knowing only the finest type of Eng- 
lishmen, will not be shaken in their belief that the 



2IO Germany's Point of View 

English warfare is superior, and actually nobler, than 
that of other people. Possibly the following letter 
which appeared in the London Daily News of August 
i6, 1906, may open their eyes. It was written by a 
British officer to his mother, recording the progress 
of events in the campaign against the Zulu chief, 
Bambaata : 

About nine o'clock a. m., Mudhlogozulu, the paramount 
chief, appeared, carrying a white flag. Some two or three 
hundred accompanied him. He arrived a few yards in 
front of a sergeant and explained that he wanted to give 
in. The reply, of course, was a bullet that must have sent 
his brains some fifty yards off. His followers, who were 
now far too terrorized to use their weapons, stood back in 
a mass and shrieked for mercy. Mercy came quicker than 
expected — in the shape of a Maxim. What a sight ! The 
whole bundle dropped lifeless in less than a minute! 
Several women were among the slain, as well as a lot of 
young boys. . . . The general way of dispatching the 
prisoners is to take them out of camp and tell them to run 
away into bush. They only get about twenty yards or so 
when a bullet reaches them, and, of course, it is, " Good- 
bye, John," for them. A faithful Kaffir was looking about 
the fallen when he found Bambaata and at once took steps 
to have his head brought into camp for identification. 
Well, the first thing the doctor ordered was to have the 
matter kept secret, and also to have it stuffed at once. 
We carried the head with us for about a week, when it was 
dissected, and the skull will probably be made into a nice 
tobacco jar for someone. Curiously enough, I was never 
in better health, and altogether the food is splendid. In 
fact, I think it is the finest picnic I have ever been at. 

Those who think this letter too terrible to be true 
should look for confirmation of this EngHsh spirit 
of warfare to Mr. Churchill's account of Lord Kitch- 
ener's River War, and remember that the Daily News 
is no sensational paper, but the organ of the Society 
of Friends. 



"La Grande Pitie des Eglises de France" 211 

The most horrible tale, however, that has come from 
the English army was related in Collier's Weekly, 
January 2, 1915, page 6: 

In a temporary hospital near the front, some fifty 
German and Indian wounded were put in the same ward. 
In the night the Indians got up and cut the Germans' 
throats. 

There was no editorial comment, no rebuke to the 
English for introducing such savages into Europe, no 
reminder that the recurrence of such practices would 
irretrievably alienate from. England the sympathies of 
all Americans. Forgotten, alas ! in many quarters, is 
the American Declaration of Independence, while its 
memory is kept alive in the hearts of America's more 
recent citizens. How many Americans who today 
blame the Germans for their bitterness against oppo- 
nents who are fighting them with savage Indians, 
Zouaves, and Turkos, know that their forefathers men- 
tioned in their Declaration of Independence as one of 
the reasons why henceforth there could be no connec- 
tion between them and England, that : 

He [the king of England] had endeavored to bring on 
the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian 
savages, whose known rule of warfare is in undistin- 
guished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions. 

Even if this declaration has ceased to carry its 
message of proud independence to some Americans 
whose families have been long settled here, the Ameri- 
cans of German descent feel its ennobling force, and 
are proud that their hearts are vibrating to the emo- 
tions of the founders of American independence. God 
bless those noble men of long ago ! 

And God bless William 11 of Hohenzollern, German 



212 Germany's Point of View 

Emperor! Some have called him medieval and out of 
date, many have maligned him, but nobody, familiar 
with his character and his work, has failed to recognize 
that in an age of materialism William ii has been the 
immovable rock of religious faith. Compare the de- 
struction of churches and the persecution especially of 
the Catholic faith in France with the toleration of all 
creeds and the reverence offered to the Deity in Ger- 
many, and you will see that also in this respect Ger- 
many is nearer to America than any other country. 
The Emperor's Christianity is very practical, and that 
is the reason why it has been so distasteful to the 
opponents of all religion, and why it has won for him 
the admiration of his countrymen. His speeches ring 
true. Sixteen years ago almost to the day he ad- 
dressed the men of Brandenburg, which is the oldest 
province of Prussia, in these words [the translation 
is quoted from What Germany Wants, pages 31 
to 34] : 

My Dear Mr. President and Men of Brandenburg: 

The address which we have just heard gave a most 
patriotic survey, poetically embellished, of the deeds of 
the Hohenzollerns and the history of our people. I believe 
I am expressing your own feelings when I say that two 
factors made it possible for my ancestors to solve their 
problems as they did. One, and the chief factor, was 
that they of all the princes, at a time when such thoughts 
and feelings were not yet universal, realized their personal 
responsibility toward God, and acted accordingly, and 
the other, that they had the support of the people of 
Brandenburg. 

Put yourselves back for a moment to the time when 
Lord Frederick i was appointed elector here, and ex- 
changed his splendid home in Franconia for the March 
of Brandenburg. According to the historians, the condi- 
tions here at that time were such that we today can barely 



"La Grande Pitie des Eglises de France'' 213 

conceive of them. We can therefore understand Lord 
Frederick's action only if we assume that he felt it his 
duty to accept the country which the emperor's favor had 
bestowed on him. He was eager to introduce in Branden- 
burg system and order, 'not only because he wished to 
please the emperor, and himself, but because he believed 
Heaven had assigned to him this task. Similar motives 
we can trace with all my ancestors. Their big wars with 
other countries, and their institutions and laws at home, 
were ever inspired by the one feeling of responsibility to 
the people who had been given into their keeping, and the 
country which had been intrusted to them. 

The president of the province has kindly referred to our 
trip to Palestine and what I did there. I am free to say 
that I have had many and varied experiences of an elevat- 
ing nature in that country, partly religious, partly histor- 
ical, and partly, also, connected with modern life. My most 
inspiring experience, however, next to the service in our 
own church, was to stand on the Mount of Olives and see 
the spot at its base where the greatest struggle of the 
world was fought — by the One Man — for the redemp- 
tion of mankind. This realization induced me to renew 
on that day my oath of allegiance, as it were, to God on 
high. I swore to do my very best to knit my people to- 
gether, and to destroy whatever could disintegrate them. 

During my stay in that foreign country, where we 
Germans miss the woods and the beautiful sheets of water 
which we love, I often thought of the lakes of Branden- 
burg and their clear, sombre depths, and of our forests 
of oaks and pines, and then I said to myself that, after all, 
we are far happier here than in foreign lands, although 
the other people of Europe often pity us. 

Speaking of trees, and our care and love of them, I am 
reminded of an incident which is of interest to us who 
have begun to assist the growth of the German empire. 
It happened after the great and inspiring events of 1870-71. 
The troops had returned, the exultation had abated, people 
had resumed their former labors, and the work of solidify- 
ing and developing the new Fatherland was beginning. 
The three paladins of the grand old Emperor, the great 
General, the mighty Chancellor, and the faithful Minister 
of War, had sat down to a meal, for the first time alone. 
When they had drunk their first glass to the sovereign 
and the empire, the Chancellor turned to his companions 



214 Germany's Point of View 

and said : " Now we have obtained everything for the 
realization of which we have been fighting, struggHng, and 
suffering. We have reached the highest goal of which we 
ever dared to dream. After our experiences, what more 
can there be to interest and to inspire us ? " There was a 
brief pause, and then the old director of battles said, 
" To see the tree grow ! " And the room was very still. 

Yes, gentlemen, the tree which we must watch and care 
for is the German Empire Oak. It is bound to grow, 
because it has the protection of the men of Brandenburg. 
Here are its roots. It has weathered many a storm, and 
has often almost died, but its roots and shoots, firmly 
planted in Brandenburg soil, will keep, God grant, in all 
eternity ! 

The wish to bring about peace among all the people is 
magnificent, but one big mistake is generally made in all 
such calculations. As long as unregenerated sin rules 
among men there will be war and hatred, envy and dis-* 
cord, and one man will try to get the better of another. 
The law of men is also the law of nations. Let us Ger- 
mans, therefore, hold together like a solid rock! And 
may every wave which threatens peace, far away or at 
home in Europe, dash in vain against this immovable 
rock — the German people ! 

The Emperor's hopes have not come true. The 
most terrible tempest is raging, and Germany has 
been drawn into the vortex with irresistible force. 
Wars are only the continuations of previous policies, 
and so long as these are hidden who dares to say 
that Germany is altogether right and that her oppo- 
nents are wrong? But of this, all who know Germany 
are convinced that she is not wrong in the sense in 
which she has been misrepresented. And, so far as 
the Emperor is concerned, he will yet be known, not 
as the War Lord, which is a mistranslation of Kriegs- 
herr, but as the prince who loved peace, and the man 
who through a long and successful reign never lost his 
faith in God, and who lived a life of such personal 



"La Grande Pitie des Eglises de France'' 215 

purity that no one dared to point the finger of scandal 
at him. Other leaders may have been more brilliant, 
or have increased their country by successful wars, 
but never yet has a man assisted his people, by the arts 
of peace, to as phenomenal a growth of prosperity as 
he. People have called him headstrong and fond of 
managing everything himself. But in the supreme 
moment, during ten months of the war, strong leader 
that he is, he has completely effaced himself. This 
is the reason why today everybody in Germany, young 
and old, rich and poor, prince and peasant, joins in the 
one prayer : ** God bless William 11 ! " 



CHAPTER XVII 



THE FRENCH YELLOW BOOK 



THE FRENCH Yellow Book is one of the most 
remarkable official publications ever issued. 
Avowedly circulated to prove the justice of the 
French case, it makes the most damaging admissions 
concerning the Allies, and, when one separates truth 
from fiction, reads like the eloquent pleading of a 
pro-German. If it correctly portrays the state of 
mind of the French officials in the anxious days pre- 
ceding the war, it suggests that among the Allies only 
Sazonof kept his head, because he was the only one 
who knew from the first just what he wanted. 

The book is delightful reading, but since it is full 
of contradictions a detailed study of its many 
despatches is needed to obtain a clear picture of the 
important ante-bellum events. Since not everybody 
is able to give the book such a study, the results of a 
thorough analysis and of a comparison of the French 
despatches with those published by Sir Edward Grey 
are here presented under eight separate heads. Each 
part is complete in itself, although it has not been 
deemed necessary to repeat in full in the later parts 
the quotations and references given in the earlier parts. 
The first three parts are introductory, and show 
that the French publication is incomplete, often 
inaccurate, and at times intentionally misleading. 
The remaining five parts discuss in turn the atti- 

2l6 



The French Yellow Book 217 

tudes of Russia, France, Austria, Germany, and 
England. 

The Yellow Book, like all other Parliamentary pa- 
pers, is incomplete. Many despatches have been 
omitted. In Numbers 16 and 17 M. Martin announces 
to his ambassadors everywhere that M. Jules Cambon 
had sent him an important message from Berlin. The 
message itself, however, is not printed. One wonders 
what it may have contained in addition to the news 
that the Bourse is extremely weak (No. 16) and that 
in fact there had been a slump (No. 17). 

In Numbers 17, 26, 2y, references are made to 
despatches from Rome, while the despatches them- 
selves are missing. It will be remembered that most 
of the despatches omitted from the British Blue Book 
also hailed from Rome (see New York Times, No- 
vember I, 1914). Number 31 is a brief despatch 
from St. Petersburg on the subject covered by the 
long despatch Number 6 of the British Blue Book. 
Did the French Government omit most of the despatch 
because it was somewhat inconvenient to be reminded 
of several things? (i), that the French ambassador 
had promised as early as July 24 to go with Russia 
through thick and thin. This might have taken the 
luster off the promises to work for peace, which were 
to be strewn liberally through the book. (2), that 
Great Britain, the noble defender of weak and down- 
trodden Servia, said on July 24 that "her interests 
in Servia were mV." (3), that the Russian prime 
minister, M. Sazonof, said, on July 24, that Russian 
mobilization must "be carried out." One wonders 
when it really began. The Czar telegraphed the Ger- 
man Emperor on July 30 that it began on July 25. 



2i8 Germany's Point of View 

But did he know? (4), that Sazonof himself wrote 
the reply which Servia sent to the Austrian demand. 
This deduction seems clear from the words quoted 
below. It will be remembered (British Blue Book No. 
6) that Sazonof and the British and the French am- 
bassadors had gathered for a friendly chat. Said 
the British ambassador, " It seems to me desirable 
that we should know how Servia will answer." (His 
report puts it " is prepared to go to meet the demands 
formulated by Austria in her note.") Sazonof replied, 
"I must first consult my colleagues." (5), that at 
this same conference it was decided that it would 
be best if Sir Edward Grey would promise his sup- 
port at once, but that France and Russia " were deter- 
mined to make a strong stand," even if Grey " declined 
to join them." Since they were assured of Grey's dip- 
lomatic support, " strong stand " strikes the reader as 
a pleasant euphemism. 

The same diffidence induced the French Govern- 
ment to "doctor" Sazonof 's threat (British Blue 
Book No. 17), which said that 

Russia could not allow Austria to crush Servia and become 
the predominant Power in the Balkans, and if she feels 
secure of the support of France she will face all the risks 
of war, 

or, rather to omit the despatch of the French ambas- 
sador in St. Petersburg altogether, and to substitute 
one from Rome (No. 52), in which Sazonof told the 
first part of his threat, but not the threat of war, to the 
Italian ambassador, who telegraphed it to his foreign 
secretary in Rome, who told the French ambassador, 
who reported home. It will be seen later that while 



The French Yellow Book 219 

threats of war were freely spoken of between France, 
England, and Russia, they were always omitted in 
discussing the case with Germany, Austria, and 
Italy. 

In Number 50 Martin refers to a despatch by Jules 
Cambon, the French ambassador in Berlin, who 
had said that Germany would reply to the first Rus- 
sian steps by attacking France. The despatch itself, 
and all the other interesting information it may have 
contained, have been omitted. Similar omissions may 
be detected throughout the Yellow Book. A very 
notable one is the autograph letter from the President 
to the king referred to in Number no as intended to 
influence England in favor of France. The text of the 
letter, which must have been written on July 30, 19 14, 
is not given in the Yellow Book, and when it was pub- 
lished by England on February 20, 191 5, it was 
wrongly dated, July 31, 19 14. 

Unlike most other official documents, this Yellow 
Book is inaccurate on its own internal evidence. Many 
of the despatches seem to have been written up from 
notes, the same notes serving for several despatches. 
Thus, in Number 25, M. Berthelot in Paris uses the 
same words, which, in Number 29, the Russian charge 
d'affaires is quoted as having spoken to Jules Cambon 
in Berlin. Part of Number 74 has been prepared from 
the same notes as Number 81. In Number 74, which 
dates from Berlin, July 27, Jules Cambon wrote : 

As Herr von Jagow did not answer me clearly, I asked 
him if he wanted war. He protested energetically. . . . 
" Moreover," he added, " direct conversations between 
Vienna and St. Petersburg are begun and are proceeding. 
I expect much good of them, and I have hope." 



220 Germany's Point of View 

Number 8i, of July 2'8i, is another despatch from Jules 
Cambon, in Berlin, and contains these words : 

I asked him if he wanted war; he protested, and added 
that direct conversations between Vienna and St. Peters- 
burg were begun, and that from now on he expected a 
favorable result. 

Other inaccuracies have to do with the placing of 
the despatches out of their order. Number 33 states 
that the Austrian ultimatum is not known and should, 
therefore, precede Numbers 30, 31, 32 in which the 
ultimatum is known. In like manner Numbei^ 68, 
which speaks of a proposal of Sir Edward Grey, as of 
one that is to be made in the future, antedates Number 
61, where Sir Edward's proposal is discussed. The 
same is true of Number 112, which was written be- 
fore Number 113. 

These and similar mistakes may be due to the hasty 
makeup of the Yellow Book, although the French Gov- 
ernment took more time for it than any other Govern- 
ment. No such excuse is possible for the following 
errors. In Number 30, Berlin, July 24, the beginning 
and the end contradict each other: 

I asked the Secretary of State if it was true, as was 
stated in the newspapers, that Austria had sent a note to 
the Powers dealing with her differences with Servia; if 
he had received it. Herr von Jagow replied affirmatively, 
adding that the note was energetic, and that he approved 
it, the Servian Government having long since exhausted 
Austrian patience. 

The last paragraph of the same note reads : 

It is none the less striking to note the care with which 
Herr von Jagow and all the officials under him are at 
pains to say to everybody that they know nothing of the 
nature of the note handed by Austria to Servia. 



The French Yellow Book 221 

Even more striking is the fact that the Austrian note 
was delivered in Belgrade at 6 p. m., the previous 
day (Number 23), and that it was presented in Paris 
at 10 A. M. It is given in full in Number 24, and yet 
in Number 30 Jules Cambon has to explain his query 
by a reference to newspaper accounts. 

Equally marvelous is Jules Cambon's question in 
Number 92, July 29 : 

I asked Herr von Jagow if at last he had the reply of 
• Servia to Austria, 

because two days earlier, in Number 74, July 27, he 
reported to Paris as follows : 

I asked him if he had made himself acquainted with the 
Servian reply to Austria, which had been handed to him 
that morning by the Servian charge d'affaires. 

Number 28, July 24, gives evidence of a remarkable 
memory on the part of Martin. On this day the Ger- 
man ambassador, von Schoen, presented a note to the 
French Foreign Office 

of which he did not wish to leave a copy, but which, at 
my request, he read twice. 

Then Martin proceeds to quote almost verbatim the 
note presented by von Schoen. We can check the 
accuracy of his memory by the published account 
of this note in the German White Paper and the Brit- 
ish Blue Book, for the identical note was handed to, 
and left with. Sir Edward Grey on the same day. It 
covers an entire page in the Blue Book, Number 9, and, 
since London and Paris were in almost hourly com- 
munication with each other in those days, it is more 
likely that Martin knew the note from London than 



222 Germany's Point of View 

that he remembered it. It is, however, strange that 
Paul Cambon's despatch from London containing the 
note is absent, and that Martin's later orders to his 
ambassadors are in error as regards the presentation 
of this note in London. In Number 36, July 25, 
Martin makes the definite statement that the German 
ambassador in London had not yet presented the note ; 
and in Number 50, July 26, that he had presented it 
on July 25, when, as a matter of fact. Sir Edward 
Grey prints it as received on July 24. 

In this same Number 50, July 26, Jules Cambon is 
quoted as reporting from Berlin that Germany would 
attack France on the first Russian steps, but his own 
despatch is not given. 

The Yellow Book abounds in various statements, 
which are flatly contradicted by known facts. The 
most glaring instance of this is Number 127, August 
I, addressed by the French premier, M. Viviani, to 
his ambassador in London, Paul Cambon, and meant 
to convince Sir Edward Grey, or rather to give Sir 
Edward Grey a means of convincing 

English opinion . . . from what side the aggression comes ; 
and it will grasp the very strong reasons we have given to 
Sir Edward Grey in our demand for the armed interven- 
tion of England in the interest of the future European 
equilibrium. 

The various points of this note may be summarized as 
follows : 

I. Germany and Austria are suddenly trying to 
distort the truth and to throw the responsibility of the 
war on Russia. The implication is that they should 
have said so before, if they had really thought so. As 



The French Yellow Book 223 

a matter of fact they did say so. In Number 92, 
July 29, Jules Cambon reports from Berlin : 

The Imperial Chancellor asked the British ambassador 
to come and see him — he assured my colleague of his 
sincere desire for peace and of the efforts he was making 
in Vienna, but he added Russia alone had it in her power 
to maintain peace or to let loose war. 

The British ambassador was Sir E. Goschen ; his inter- 
view of July 29 is given in the British Blue Book, 
Number 75, where the words that 

Russia alone had it in her power to maintain peace or let 
loose war 

are omitted. If Jules Cambon had reference to an 
interview of July 28, but dated it wrongly in his de- 
spatch, such an interview is given in the British Blue 
Book, Number 71. The expression concerning the 
responsibility of Russia, however, is toned down to 
read : 

If war were to result, Russia would be entirely responsible, 
France and England had constantly counseled moderation 
in St. Petersburg. 

2. This is not the case as appears from Numbers 62 
and ^o. Germany and Austria were constantly asking 
France and England to do this, but both refused. In 
Number 62, July 27, Germany's desire that the 
French Government exert all its influence in a sooth- 
ing manner on the St. Petersburg cabinet is refused. 
Because, as Martin reports to Viviani, such a French 
step in St. Petersburg "would have been difficult to 
explain." On the next day, July 28, Sir Edward Grey 
refused a similar request (No. 80), saying 

that he would be much embarrassed in making pacific 
recommendations in St. Petersburg. 



224 Germany's Point of View 

3. Sazonof had "pressed Servia to accept the 
clauses of the ultimatum compatible with her sover- 
eignty." This can only be meant as a joke; for, from 
the British Blue Book, Number 6, it appears that Sa- 
zonof probably wrote the answer himself. Before 
that, however, on July 21, Servia notified Berlin (Yel- 
low Book, Number 15) that she would agree to the 
Austrian ultimatum if no judiciary cooperation were 
demanded. Austria, probably at Germany's instance, 
omitted such a request, and when Servia interpreted 
several passages as amounting to a judiciary coopera- 
tion, Austria declared (British Blue Book, 64) that 
this was not her meaning. Italy considered the ulti- 
matum perfectly acceptable, and advised Servia to 
accept it, as late as July 27 {Yellow Book, No. 72; 
Blue Book, No. 57). England had no objections, Sir 
Edward Grey saying {Blue Book, No. 47) 

it would be absurd if we were to appear more Servian 
than the Russians. 

while Sazonof said {Bhie Book, No. 78) that he 
*' could not be more Servian than Servia." Yet, no- 
where is there a record of wholesome, moderating 
advice given to Servia. What little is given is of the 
nature as that recorded in Number 26, when the 
Servian minister asked the French Government for 
advice, and in response was 

told by the political direction as a purely personal matter 
that Servia should try to gain time. 

4. Austria began general mobilization, being first to 
take such action. 

This is contradicted (a) by Sazonof, who, on July 
24, said (British Blue Book, Number 6) that Rus- 



The French Yellow Book 225 

sian mobilization would have to be " carried out," 
while nobody claims that Austria had begun mobiliza- 
tion on that day, and (b) by Number 78 of the Rus- 
sian Orange Book, printed as an appendix to the 
French Yellow Book, of which the first paragraph 
reads, in part, as follows : 

Our mobilization was caused by the enormous responsi- 
bility which we would have incurred if we had failed to 
take every measure of precaution at a moment when 
Austria . . . was bombarding Belgrade and proceeding to 
a general mobilization. 

5. Germany has absolutely forced us to issue today a 
decree of mobilization. Long before Russian mobilization, 
on Wednesday last (July 29), as I have already tele- 
graphed to you, Baron von Schoen announced to me the 
forthcoming proclamation of the Kriegsgefahrzustand 
(i. e., preparedness for war). This step has been taken 
by Germany, and sheltered by this screen, she began her 
mobilization. (French despatches.) 

In the first place the despatch here referred to is 
not given in the Yellow Book. Secondly, the Kriegs- 
gefahrzustand was announced in Berlin, not on 
Wednesday, but on Friday, July 31, and reported to 
Paris by Jules Cambon in Number 116, and on the 
same day by Sir E. Goschen in London (British Blue 
Book, Number 112). Thirdly, French mobilization 
was in progress * a day earlier, July 30 ; for, when the 
German ambassador in Paris asked about it on that 
day, it was not denied. This is told in No. 10 1. This 
same number, finally, which is a despatch from the 

* It is now known from documents found on the Secretary 
of the British Legation in Belgium that French mobilization 
was in progress as early as July 27, 1914. See New York 
Times, April 14, 1915. 



226 Germmiy's Point of View 

French prime minister to the French ambassador in 
St. Petersburg, contains this order: 

Russia should take no immediate steps which might offer 
to Germany a pretext for the total or partial mobilization 
of her forces. 

This proves that Viviani knew perfectly well that 
Germany had not mobilized, even partially, all excited 
reports notwithstanding. It also proves how misin- 
formed Sir E. Goschen was when he telegraphed to 
London on July 29, as follows (British Blue Book, 
Number y6) : 

The German Secretary of State . . . was much troubled 
by reports of mobilization in Russia and of certain mili- 
tary measures, which he did not specify, being taken in 
France. He subsequently spoke of these measures to my 
French colleague, who informed him that the French Gov- 
ernment had done nothing more than the German Govern- 
ment had done, namely, recalled officers on leave. His 
excellency denied having done this, but as a matter of 
fact it is true. 

These five points, every one contrary to fact, were 
to be transmitted to Sir Edward Grey immediately. 
Some he may have believed; others he may have 
deemed exaggerations. There is, however, no record 
of his questioning any, either in the French or the 
English documents. It is more than likely that he 
submitted them in their entirety to the British cabinet. 
Sir Edward has the reputation of being astute. From 
the French Yellow Book, however, it would appear 
that he was entirely duped by Sazonof, and especially 
by Paul Cambon. 

The Russian attitude was consistent throughout. 
It was thoroughly Slav, and may be described in 



The French Yellow Book 227 

Mr. Guechov's words (quoted in Report of the Balkan 
Wars, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 
February, 1914, page 65) as the position "of working 
for war while remaining a partisan of peace." The 
French Yellow Book is liberally strewn with refer- 
ences to Sazonof's pacific intentions, but nowhere can 
an indication be found that he had modified his first 
stand, which contemplated war unless Russia got 
exactly what she wanted. He made this perfectly clear 
to France and England from the first, sending them, on 
July 25, the following message (British Blue Book, 
Number 17, French Yellow Book, 52, where the 
despatch is shortened) : 

Russia could not allow Austria to crush Servia and be- 
come the predominant Power in the Balkans, and if she 
feels secure of the support of France she will face all 
the risks of war. 

France gave such assurances almost daily, begin- 
ning July 24, where we read (British Blue Book, Num- 
ber 6) : 

France would fulfil all the obligations entailed by her 
alliance with Russia if necessity arose, besides supporting 
Russia strongly in any diplomatic negotiations. 

To what extent Sir Edward Grey believed later 
promises of pacific intentions had modified Sazonof's 
views, it is impossible to state. The English and 
French positions will be discussed later. It suffices, 
therefore, to state that in Sazonof's master mind the 
case appeared very simple, thus : 

(i) We cannot allow Austria to become the pre- 
dominant Power in the Balkans; (2) Servia must, 
therefore, neither humble herself by accepting Aus- 



228 Germany's Point of View 

tria's ultimatum, nor be defeated in war; (3) Unless 
Servia accepts the ultimatum, Austria will make war 
on her and defeat her single handed; (4) Russia, 
therefore, will enter the war, which will mean the 
entry of Germany, owing to her alliance with Austria ; 
(5) Russia alone is no match for Germany and Aus- 
tria; therefore (6) France must join Russia. But 
while she has promised her support, Russia can be 
sure of it only under two conditions: (a) if France 
feels threatened by Germany; (b) if she can be as- 
sured of England's help; (7) all that is necessary, 
therefore, to bring about these conditions is to fan 
France's suspicions of Germany — and how valiantly 
this was done is seen from the quotations given below. 
Sazonof knew that Sir Edward Grey and the French 
ambassador in London, Paul Cambon, were on inti- 
mate terms. If France could be thoroughly aroused 
and honestly feel herself in danger, Cambon could be 
trusted to present the case to Sir Edward in such a 
light that the latter would feel in honor bound to 
assist France; (8) one more thing was very desirable, 
viz., to get as much of a start in mobilization as pos- 
sible ; Germany could mobilize in a couple of days ; 
if she felt war was unavoidable, she would mobilize 
at once, and if she did so, not even the three great 
Powers, Russia, France, and England combined could 
withstand her. 

It is idle to speculate what might have happened. 
But if Germany had known of Sazonof 's despatch 
of July 25, quoted above, and expressing his deter- 
mination "To face all the risks of war" rather than 
see Austria rehabilitate herself, and if she had known 
that Russian mobilization was going on as early as 



The French Yellow Book 229 

July 24, and that on the same day France had prom- 
ised to support Russia, not only diplomatically, but 
by force of arms (see above), and if she had finally 
also known of Sir Edward Grey's arrangement of 
mutual assistance with France, contained in his letter 
to Paul Cambon of 1912, and first made public in 
Parliament on August 3, 1914 — if she had known 
all this and had, therefore, clearly seen the impos- 
sibility of an understanding unless she sacrificed the 
interests of her ally, Austria, which she was of 
course, unwilling to do, the present state of affairs 
might have been different. If Germany had struck at 
once, on July 25, most people familiar with military 
affairs believe she would have defeated France easily 
before Russia had enough troops ready to harass her 
eastern frontier; and, with the French channel and 
Atlantic coasts in her power, English resistance would 
have been useless. The Belgian horrors and the con- 
tinued holocausts on the French and Polish battle- 
fields would have been avoided. Germany has laid 
a terribly costly sacrifice on the altar of peace, because 
she delayed her mobilization from July 25 to August 
2. If weakness and incompetence had been the cause 
of this delay, no censure could be too severe. But 
Germany knows, and in the future the whole world 
will know, that it was not weakness but the strong 
and passionate love of peace which determined the 
course of the Chancellor, and, after his return to 
Berlin, that of the Emperor. 

It has already been mentioned above that, according 
to the French Yellow Book and the British Blue Book, 
references to a contemplated war were freely spoken 
of between the representatives of France, Russia, and 



230 Germany's Point of View 

England, but that they were omitted from the conver- 
sations which these men had with the representatives 
of Germany, Austria, and Italy. Two very character- 
istic records of this mode of procedure are found in 
Numbers 37 and 38 of the Yellow Book, and Number 
25 of the British Blue Book. 

French Number 38 contains a despatch from M. 
Paleologue, the French ambassador, at St. Petersburg, 
who reports under date of July 25, in part as follows : 

M. Sazonof has begged the German ambassador to point 
out the danger of the situation to his Government. He 
refrained, however, from alluding to the step which 
Russia will no doubt be led to take if Servia is threatened. 

This refers to Russia's declaration that she " will face 
all the risks of war " rather than see Austria rehabili- 
tate herself in the Balkans. Here is a bald-faced state- 
ment that Sazonof intentionally refrained from giving 
to Germany the whole message, which he had sent to 
London and Paris. 

In this connection the French Number 2)7 and Brit- 
ish Number 25 should be compared. The former is 
a despatch from the French charge d'affaires in Lon- 
don, M. de Fleuriau, who reports, July 25, as follows : 

Sir Edward Grey (speaking to the German ambassador) 
added this remark, that if war did break out no Power 
in Europe would be able to remain aloof from it. 

Since Germany could not possibly have thought that 
England would fight against France, the French 
premier, receiving this message, understood it to mean 
that Germany has been clearly told: "If there is to 
be a European war, England will join France against 
you." This is, however, not the message which reached 



The French Yellow Book 231 

Germany, nor is it the wording which Sir Edward 
Grey put in his Blue Book Number 25 : 

I concurred in his (the German ambassador's) observa- 
tion, and said that I felt I had no title to intervene be- 
tween Austria and Servia, but as soon as the question 
became one as between Austria and Russia, the peace of 
Europe was affected, in which we must all take a hand. 

The German ambassador, and any reader of the whole 
despatch, can only understand this to mean that while 
Sir Edward Grey did not wish to " intervene between 
Austria and Servia," England would have to take her 
part in the discussions later "between Austria and 
Russia." This is not the only message given by Sir 
Edward Grey to the German ambassador in London, 
which was reported in much stronger, at times even 
threatening, terms, in Paris. The explanation of such 
discrepancies will be given in the discussion of the 
positions of France and England as they appear from 
the records of the French Yellow Book. 

As regards the Russian position, a few more de- 
spatches may be quoted, which show that the Russian 
representatives cleverly fanned the flame of French 
suspicion of Germany. In Number 15, July 21, the 
Russian charge d'affaires in Berlin, tells Jules Cam- 
bon that it was very astonishing that the German Sec- 
retary of Foreign Affairs, von Jagow, claimed not to 
know the contents of the forthcoming Austrian ulti- 
matum. It is suggested that von Jagow is lying. In 
Number 27, July 24, the Russian charge d'affaires tells 
Jules Cambon that there are a great many people in 
Germany who want war ; and in Number 29 he insinu- 
ates that the time of the ultimatum has been so fixed 
that France is caught at a disadvantage, when her 



232 Germany's Point of View 

president and premier are aboard ship on their return 
from St. Petersburg. The same idea is repeated in 
Number 29. In Number 32 the Russian ambassador 
in London tells Paul Cambon, the French ambassador 
there, that 

he suspects a surprise on the part of Germany — and that 
war against Russia would be accepted willingly in 
Germany. 

And, to mention only one more instance, in Number 
43, the Russian charge d'affaires in Berlin speaks to 
Jules Cambon in a very pessimistic strain, and omi- 
nously refers to the '' arrieres pensees" of Germany. 

It is interesting to note that Russia carefully selected 
the men for the task of arousing French suspicions. 
In Berlin these insinuations were always made by the 
Russian charge d'affaires, Boniewski, who was on inti- 
mate terms with Jules Cambon. In London, on the 
other hand, it was the Russian ambassador. Count 
Benckendorff, whose cordial relations with Paul Cam- 
bon made him the proper spokesman of those ideas 
which were meant to fan the suspicions of France. 

A quotation was given above from the report of the 
Balkan Wars, published by the Carnegie Endowment 
for International Peace. People, who wish to under- 
stand the Servian question and Russia's attitude to- 
ward it, should read this report, and get an idea of 
the kind of people, cruel, blood-thirsty, vindictive, 
false, and headstrong, with whom Austria had to deal 
on her borders. They should also ponder this sen- 
tence (p. 41) : 

The Balkan alliance in its later phase was but a tool em- 
ployed by local policy encouraged by Russia, and directed. 



The French Yellow' Book 233 

under the inspiration of Russian diplomacy, against Ger- 
manic pretensions. 

There are very few people familiar with the Balkans, 
who believe that the conspiracy, which led to the mur- 
der of the Archduke and the beloved Countess of 
Hohenberg, had not drawn some support from "the 
inspiration of Russian diplomacy." 

The French attitude toward Germany, in recent 
years, has been intentionally hostile and suspicious. 
The French were not willing to be on good terms with 
Germany, who, on her part, had tried, and was trying, 
to be friendly with France. The German character is 
not vindictive, and unlike France, Germany's thoughts 
were not hypnotized by a wrong suffered in the past. 
Germany's tremendous growth made her look to the 
future. The man who is successful in life and con-i 
stantly grappling with new and interesting problems, 
has no time to nurse a grudge. The French, however, 
were a nation whose growth had ceased, who — as one 
writer puts it — were living on the rich inheritance 
of their past. The premier, Viviani, therefore, could 
well say of himself, and all his fellow-citizens, that 
we have been 

bearing in silence in our side for half a century, the 
wound she [Germany] opened. {Yellow Book, Number 

159.) 

The keynote of the French attitude toward Ger- 
many is expressed in Number i, Annex i, of March 
15, 19 13, in a report which the French ambassador, 
Jules Cambon, forwarded to the Home Office, and 
where we read : 

Since we neither wish to be, nor can be, with Germany. 



234 Germany's Point of View 

This was unfortunately the attitude of the French Gov- 
ernment. There can be no doubt that it was honestly 
held, but future historians will have no difficulty in 
appreciating the extreme delicacy, and forbearance, 
which Germany had to show in order to avoid, under 
such conditions, an earlier clash. Nor must it be be- 
lieved that the sentence quoted above was an idle 
phrase. How very real it was appeared from a little 
incident, which took place in Harvard, in the fall of 

1913- 

The French exchange professor of 1912 had -been 
an excellent German scholar and a broad-minded man, 
who had taken pleasure in attending the gatherings of 
the Harvard Deutsche Verein (German Club). The 
Deutsche Verein consists almost entirely of undergrad- 
uate students, and since there are very few under- 
graduates from Germany, registered in Harvard, the 
percentage of Germans in the Verein is negligible. 
American boys, who have learned German, love to 
practice it, to conduct a " kneipe'' occasionally, and 
tO' sing German student songs. Since the French 
professor of 19 12 had enjoyed these gatherings during 
the last months of his stay in Cambridge, his successor 
of 191 3 was invited, together with the German ex- 
change professor, to the opening meeting of the 
Verein, October, 19 13. The boys happen to have a 
very pleasant custom of electing the guests of honor 
at their first meeting to honorary membership. The 
president of the Verein announces this at the proper 
time, and hangs the medal of the Verein, on a black, 
white, and red ribbon, around the neck of the new 
member, who then is expected to say a few words be- 
fore the boys begin to sing. The German professor 



The French Yellow Book 235 

received his medal first and was duly grateful. But 
when the president turned to his other guest, the 
Frenchman waved the medal angrily aside, and when 
the president, to avoid an embarrassing situation, asked 
the boys to sing a song, and this song was Deutschland, 
the French exchange professor pushed back his chair 
and without excusing himself, left the room! Next 
day he let it be known through his friends that he 
regretted the incident. Personally he had no objec- 
tion to the medal on the black, white and red ribbon, 
or to the song, but he was sent to Harvard by the 
French Government, and, knowing his Government's 
attitude toward Germany, he was obliged to act as he 
did ! 

Americans who have been told that France was de- 
sirous of living at peace with Germany, should ponder 
this incident. If such a thing can happen in America 
in a company of American students, and the profes- 
sor — not an ambassador, but an exchange professor 
— feel obliged to be ruder than he would personally 
like to be, because the hostile attitude of his Govern- 
ment towards Germany demands it, then the words 
quoted above gain a meaning, which few casual read- 
ers have given them : 

Since we neither wish to be, nor can be, with Germany. 

It is quite true that until about ten or fifteen years 
ago the Franco-German relations had been constantly 
improving, but King Edward fanned the dying spark 
of the French desire for revenge into a flame. What 
had seemed hopeless before, viz., to regain Alsace-Lor- 
raine, began to appear possible with the help of Eng- 
land and of Russia. Anti-German writers have tried 



236 Germany's Point of View 

to make it appear that the Morocco incident was the 
cause of the renewal of strained relations between 
France and Germany, but this can hardly be the case, 
for the French, themselves, acknowledge that Germany 
was badly treated in the Morocco affair. (See Yellow 
Book /_, Annex i, " All Germans resent our having 
taken their share in Morocco.") 

There are constant references throughout the first 
part of the French Yellow Book to this effect. If it' 
had not been for the very pacific intentions of the 
Emperor, war would have broken out in 1906, and 
again in 191 1. And in both years Germany's chances 
would have been infinitely better than they were in 
1914. 

Chapter i, of the Yellow Book, makes very interest- 
ing reading, but it deserves no serious attention. The 
French Government has chosen to publish there some 
of the many confidential reports in their possession. 
Such reports, especially when their source is not given, 
cannot be used as proofs. Number 2, Annex 2, which 
was apparently written by an army officer, is clearly 
shown by its last paragraph to be spurious, for people 
who know anything of army reports recognize that mat- 
ters are discussed there on which no army officer 
would presume to express an opinion. And in Num- 
ber 5^ July 30, 1913, von Kiderlen is spoken of as 
planning to make war on France, when as a matter 
of fact he had been dead for more than six months. 

The papers had undoubtedly come to the French em- 
bassy through spies, of whom unfortunately all Gov- 
ernments have need. In the report of General Ducarme 
through the Belgian Minister of War, recently pub- 
lished by the German Government, that general refers 



The French Yellow Book 237 

to the secret information concerning the German army, 
which the British Lieutenant Colonel Barnardiston had 
furnished him, and he naively added that he had been 
very careful not to tell Barnardiston that he did not 
know whether the Belgian system of spies was in good 
working order or not. Spies are expensive and uncer- 
tain, and most Governments, therefore, dispense with 
their services in the capitals of their own allies. This 
may explain why neither Germany nor Italy had a 
previous accurate knowledge of the contents of the 
Austrian ultimatum to Servia, while France knew them 
as early as July 19 (see Number jj). 

Only one other point should be mentioned in con- 
nection with Chapter i^ because there seems to exist 
a misunderstanding concerning it in many quarters. 
Germany increased her army twice within recent years. 
The first time, as a result of the weakening of Turkey, 
which strengthened the smaller Balkan States, and 
consequently in case of war would have made greater 
demands on the military resources of Austria. What- 
ever the reports may tell now, nobody in Europe con- 
sidered this increase unwarranted, or in any way di- 
rected against France. The latter, nevertheless, in- 
creased her army enormously by extending the term 
of service from two to three years. Germany, there- 
upon, followed suit with her great and recent increase 
of armaments. 

Possibly a word may also be in place concerning the 
centenary celebrations of 181 3. The French Yellow 
Book tries to represent them as a conscious means re- 
sorted to by the Government to create a warlike spirit 
among the people. It is impossible to prove or dis- 
prove this assertion. It will, however, be remembered 



238 Germany's Point of View 

that there were people also in America, who believed 
that the Anglo-American preparations for the centen- 
ary celebration of the Treaty of Ghent had an ulterior 
motive, while the great mass of the people had no such 
thought. The same is true of Germany. The cele- 
brations of the deliverance of Germany from the Na- 
poleonic yoke in 1813 were largely spontaneous and 
did not contemplate the creation of enthusiasm for 
another war. Since the French am.bassador, however, 
sent different reports to Paris, he undoubtedly be- 
lieved these reports, and no impartial student can deny 
that these celebrations may have increased the sus- 
picions of France. 

Being suspicious, both the French Foreign Office 
at Paris, and Jules Cambon in Berlin, permitted them- 
selves to follow a course in their relations with the 
German ambassador. Baron von Schoen, and the Ger- 
man secretary, von Jagow, the rudeness of which 
made cooperation impossible. In reading the Yellow 
Book one cannot help feeling that the French officials, 
in writing up their several interviews, drew somewhat 
on their imagination ; for it is not at all difficult to 
imagine, when the other party to a verbal encounter is 
gone, that one had the better of him. Although it is, 
therefore, by no means necessary to believe that 
Martin, Berthelot, and Jules Cambon were as impolite 
as their writings would make one think, their attitude 
toward the German officials can not have been cheerful. 

In Numbers 15 and i1, Cambon cannot refrain from 
expressing *' his astonishment " that von Jagow should 
not have any previous knowledge of the Austrian note. 
The same occurs in Number 30, where Cambon is 
actually so insulting that von Jagow replies : 



The French Yellow Book 239 

It is only because we are talking personally between our- 
selves that I allow you to say that to me. 

From Number 26 it appears that Italy also had no 
previous knov^ledge of the note. Her word, however, 
was readily accepted, while the German officials were 
practically charged with lying. 

Number 28 describes an interview between Martin 
and Baron yon Schoen, which is far from cordial. In 
Number jd Baron von Schoen is practically accused of 
dishonesty as having himself given out some infor- 
mation to the press. Numbers ^5, 56, and 57 are full 
of unworthy suspicions and in part of insulting insinu- 
ations. The lecture administered to the ambassador 
by a subordinate of the French ministry, is in a class 
by itself. Equally unfriendly is the review Number 
61 oi Baron von Schoen's actions, and the language 
which Cambon permitted himself toward von Jagow 
in Number 74, is most remarkable. The Austrian 
ambassador is treated much better (Number 75J, while 
the Italian representatives invariably meet the courtesy 
which is due their stations. 

The explanation of the continued lack of courtesy 
toward the Germans is found in the fact that the 
French ministers, as previously stated, were suspicious 
of Germany, and feared that, in this particular case, 
Germany wanted to " compromise France." (Number 
62.) Martin was always ready to speak of his de- 
sire to work for peace, but when Germany suggested 
a concerted action, and a notice to that effect in the 
press, he declined. In his report to Premier Viviani 
he remarks that he had changed Baron von Schoen's 
wording. The notice he had given to the press, he 
said, was harmless, for the 



240 Germany's Point of View 

colorless phrasing avoids appearance of solidarity with 
Germany. Number 62, July 27. 

Few of the readers of this article are diplomats, but 
it takes no training in diplomacy to realize that a 
helpful understanding between two nations is impossi- 
ble if one is afraid of taking any steps w^hich might 
give the " appearance of solidarity " with the other. 

So far as France, therefore, was concerned, amica- 
ble cooperation with Germany to bring about an un- 
derstanding, that would be fair to all, was out of the 
question. France took her cue from Russia. Call 
it the loyalty of a good ally — so far as Russia was 
concerned, or the obstinacy of a jealous and suspicious 
opponent — so far as Germany was concerned, the re- 
sult remained the same. From the very first meeting 
of the French and British Ambassadors with the Rus- 
sian Premier, Sazonof, on July 24 (British Blue 
Book, Number 6 — see above). The French task was 
perfectly simple: (i) Stand firmly by Russia, (2) 
convince England that she must join Russia and 
France. Two modes of attack promised success: (a) 
An appeal to England's own interests, (b) an ap- 
peal to her chivalry and Sir Edward Grey's implied 
promise in his letter of November, 1912. His prom- 
ise was likely to be redeemed, if France could show 
that she stood in danger of her life by an attack by 
Germany. There is not one despatch printed in the 
French Yellow Book incompatible with the premise 
that this was France's real attitude. 

The question whether this renders France morally 
responsible for the war is a much broader one, for it 
depends on the justifications of her suspicions of Ger- 
many. In the present generation, when even the most 



The French Yellow Book 241 

impartial students cannot help feeling sympathy for 
one side or the other, and before the secret archives 
are opened, it cannot be settled. Nobody, however, 
will deny that France, in the crisis of 1914, with or 
without justification, took not a single independent 
step that might have avoided the calamity of war, ex- 
cept at the absolute submission of Austria and Ger- 
many to the will of Russia. 



CHAPTER XVIII 

THE FRENCH YELLOW BOOK 

(Continued) 

THE attitude of Austria, strangely enough, is only 
slightly touched upon in the French Yellow 
Book, and is not much different from that depicted in 
the British Blue Book. The one notable exception 
is the Austrian explanation, a note of considerable 
length, presented to the French Foreign Office on July 
2y, 1914. A similar note was presented to Sir Edward 
Grey, who did not print it in the British Blue Book, 
but substituted for it (British Blue Book, Number 48) 
his own brief summary. And to this day England 
seems to be unaware of the fact that Austria has pre- 
sented her charges to the world, for Mr. Cecil Chester- 
ton, in his debate with Mr. Viereck in New York on 
January 17, based one of his chief arguments on Aus- 
tria's neglect to do this. 

The French acting minister for foreign affairs, in 
forwarding this note, calls it " a positive act of accu- 
sation against Servia." The note* contains almost 
5,000 words and should be read in its entirety by those 
who would form their own unbiased opinion of the 
justice of Austria's position. If one believes in the 

* The note as printed in the Austrian Red Book contains 
several Annexes. It is not definitely known whether these 
are later additions, or whether the French Government sup- 
pressed them in the Yellow Book. 

242 



The French Yellow Book 243 

truth of this accusation, any defence of Servia appears 
unrighteous. If, however, one beHeves that Austria, 
who was the vitally interested party, held exaggerated 
views of Servia's guilt, one can nevertheless not deny 
her good faith. If this Austrian explanation had 
been presented in its entirety to Parliament on Au- 
gust 3, when Sir Edward Grey made his famous 
speech, it is very doubtful whether English public 
opinion could have been won for a war which, in its 
origin, was a defence of Servia ; for all the available 
evidence, and among it the Balkan Report of the 
Carnegie Peace Endowment, made it not at all unlikely 
that Servia had been guilty as Austria charged. If 
this had been known, it would have been possible to 
formulate in Parliament definite conditions, under 
which Great Britain would have promised to remain 
neutral in a war which Russia had determined to wage 
in the defence of Servia. Sir Edward Grey, it will 
be remembered, had refused to formulate such con- 
ditions on August I. The publication of this Austrian 
note, therefore, is one of the most important contribu- 
tions which has been made to the Austro-German 
cause, not only because of its positive value, but also 
because all fair-minded people will ask why Sir Ed- 
ward Grey omitted it from the British Blue Book, 
If he omitted this important document, are there not 
perhaps other unpublished papers which may throw 
a different light on the case? And if this is so, are 
not all attempts, like that of Hon. Mr. Beck, to close 
the case before the Supreme Court of Civilization, 
premature ? 

But the French Yellow Book presents other evi- 
dence previously not available in America. 



244 Germany's Point of View 

(i) The less well known Servian press, instead 
of expressing regret at the murder of the archduke 
and the innocent Countess of Hohenberg, and sym- 
pathy for their orphaned children and the aged Em- 
peror, was "daring, more aggressive, and frequently 
insulting." (Number 14.) 

(2) Austria, it would seem, had intended to de- 
mand in her ultimatum *' judicial participation " in 
the punishment of the crime. This, von Jagow in 
Berlin was informed, would be unacceptable to Servia, 
but if no such '' judicial participation " were demanded, 
the Servian minister said, "his country would accept 
Austria's demands." (Number 15.) 

(3) Germany, thereupon, seems to have requested 
Austria to modify her demands in this respect. (Num- 
bers 19 and 20.) At any rate, the final ultimatum 
contained only a demand for Austrian participation 
in the investigation, leaving the adjudication solely 
in the hands of Servia (Number 24). Austria, un- 
doubtedly, informed Germany that her suggestion had 
been heeded, for she told France (Number 20) that 
her " note made it possible to count on a pacific 
denouement." With Servia's promise, therefore 
(Number 15), that any other demands which Austria 
might make would be acceptable, von Jagow felt that 
the peace of Europe was not endangered. The Ba- 
varian premier, at any rate, on July 23 believed in a 
peaceful settlement (Number 21). 

In this connection it is interesting to note that a 
judge of the New York State Supreme Court has 
called attention to the similarity between the action of 
Austria in demanding participation in the investiga- 



The French Yellow Book 245 

tion of the Serajevo murder, and that of the United 
States in demanding participation in the investigation 
of the blowing up of the Maine. 

The Austrian note was presented on July 23, 1914, 
and by the " stiffness "of its wording surprised every- 
body, and, not the least, Germany. Throughout the 
French Yellow Book, and in part in the British Blue 
Book, doubt is expressed in the German assertion that 
Germany had not known the Austrian ultimatum be- 
fore it was presented. It must be agreed that it seems 
strange that Austria should present her ultimatum 
without first showing it to her allies. But Italy states 
more than once that she had not seen the note before- 
hand (Numbers 26, 50, et al.), and gives this as the 
reason why she is not bound to join in the war (Num- 
bers 50, 51). Nobody doubts that Italy is speaking 
the truth. Why, then, doubt Germany? For is it 
more unusual for Austria to make her demarche with- 
out showing her note to Germany than to Italy ? But, 
it is claimed, Germany had " cognizance "of the note, 
for the Bavarian premier had said so before the note 
was published. (Number 21.) This is true, but it 
may not have meant more than the previous general 
knowledge of the contents of the note which Italy 
had (Number 72, where the French ambassador 
reports that the Italian premier had been well aware 
that the note was to be "vigorous and energetic 
in character"), or which even France had (Num- 
ber 14, where a full summary of the demands of 
the note is given several days before it is actually 
presented). 

In Number 14, which is an enclosure in the report 
of the French ambassador in Vienna, and which was 



246 Germany's Point of View 

written on July 20, that is, several days before the 
note was presented, these memorable words occur: 

The shifts by which Servia will no doubt wish to delay 
a direct and clear reply have been taken into account, 
and that is why a brief delay will be fixed for her to 
notify her acceptance or refusal. 

Compare with this Number 26, where the only 
advice given by France to Servia is that she " should 
seek to gain time." (Compare also 32.) 

But Austria knew what that meant. She had, once 
before, in 1913, endeavored to curb Servian j)lots, 
and the whole danger threatening her very existence 
from that quarter. She had, at that time, sounded 
Italy and Germany before making a demarche, and 
the result had been that she had been restrained from 
taking any steps. This whole afifair, while public 
knowledge for over a year, was announced recently 
in the press, as if a new secret had been revealed, 
when Signor Giolitti, ex-premier of Italy, referred to 
it in the Italian Parliament (see Chapter IX). What 
assurances Austria received in 1913, if she undertook 
no punitive expedition against Servia, is not known. 
It is, however, known that many Austrians blame Ger- 
many indirectly for the murder of the archduke ; for, 
if Germany had supported Austria in 1913, and had 
not represented to her that the Servian propaganda was 
not so bad as she thought it was, and that she could be 
patient, and that Servia, on the good advice of Rus- 
sia, would desist from her plottings ; if, in short, Aus- 
tria had been permitted in 19 13 to put an end, once 
and for all, to Servian intrigues, then the tragedy of 
Serajevo would not have taken place. 

Nobody can deny the justice of these sentiments. 



The French Yellow Book 247 

and consequently the extreme delicacy which was 
demanded of Germany in trying to exert once again 
a moderating influence on Austria. The latter had 
very clearly stated (British Blue Book, 38) that it 
was for her a question of life or death. Every de- 
mand, therefore, of Germany which could appear to 
Austria to be in the nature of permitting Servia to 
escape her just punishment, and of preventing Austria 
from securing peace on her southern border ■ — as 
she had been prevented from doing a year ago — was 
sure to be met with the reply, " I yielded to you last 
year, and you see what was the result. If I yield 
again today, the result will be not the death of an 
archduke, but the death of the empire.'* It is on the 
background of such sentiments that the Austro-Ger- 
man attitude should be viewed. 

It is, at first sight, not easy to draw a correct pic- 
ture of the attitude of Germany from the French 
Yellow Book, where more than one hundred des- 
patches and notes have been brought together with 
the avowed purpose of proving that Germany, and 
she alone, deserves the opprobrium of having started 
the great war. People familiar with sifting evidence, 
however, and those acquainted with the principles of 
the so-called higher criticism, have no difficulty in 
separating the expressions of opinion from the state- 
ments of facts. The former were valuable in revealing 
the French attitude toward Germany ; the latter, on 
the other hand, are the only safe grounds on which 
to reconstruct the position taken by Germany in the 
momentous days leading up to the war. Up to and 
including the twenty-ninth of July, Germany did not 
believe that Russia would go to war. This appears 



248 - Germany's Point of View 

from several despatches, and most especially from 
Numbers 63 and 96 (Yellow Book). The latter is a 
despatch from the French ambassador in Rome, M. 
Barriere, who had an interview with the Italian min- 
ister of foreign affairs, the Marquis di San Giuliano, 
whom he quoted as follows : 

Unfortunately, in this whole affair, it had been and still 
was the conviction of Austria and Germany that Russia 
would not march. In this connection he read me a 
despatch from M. Boliati reporting an interview he had 
today with Herr von Jagow, in which the latter again 
repeated that he did not believe that Russia would march. 
He based this belief upon the fact that the Russian Gov- 
ernment had just sent an agent to Berlin to deal with 
certain financial matters. The Austrian ambassador in 
Berlin had also said to his English colleague that he 
did not believe in a general war, Russia being neither in 
the temper nor in a condition to make war. 

A report of a similar statement by the British am- 
bassador in Rome is printed in the British Blue Book^ 
Number 80, July 29: 

He (the Italian minister of foreign affairs) added that 
there seemed to be difficulty in making Germany believe 
that Russia was in earnest. As Germany, however, was 
really anxious for good relations with ourselves, if she 
believed that Great Britain would act with Russia and 
France, he thought that it would have a great effect. 

Two observations occur at once: (i), Since Sazonof 
had decided, on July 25, " to run all the risks of war," 
if he could have the support of France (see above and 
British Blue Book, 17), his sending a financial agent 
to Berlin was a clever, some may say conscienceless, 
ruse in order to gain time for his mobilization before 
Germany grew suspicious. (2), Since Sir Edward 
Grey knew of Sazonof 's determination, and was per- 



The French Yellow Book 249 

sonally in honor bound by his letter to Jules Cambon 
of November, 1912, to secure the support of Parlia- 
ment for France in the case of war, he had it in his 
power to enlighten Germany. As appeared above, 
from a comparison between Yellow Book, Number 66, 
and Blue Book, Number 47, France was told that Sir 
Edward had done so, while, as a matter of fact, the 
message which reached Germany was so weak that it 
stated only that England would have to take a hand 
in the mediation, if the difficulties spread. 

Early in the morning of July 30, Sir Edward seems 
to have committed himself definitely to the support 
of France and Russia, and Germany seems to have 
been informed of this, either directly or by secret 
agents. At any rate, on July 30, Sir Edward Grey 
received a message from his ambassador in Rome, 
stating that Germany now seemed 

convinced that we should act with France and Russia, 
and was most anxious to avoid issue with us. (British 
Blue Book Number 106). 

Germany's position, therefore, and the actions she 
took may be clearly divided into two parts: (i). Be- 
fore July 30, while she was convinced that the Servian 
difficulty would not result in war, because Russia 
was not in earnest, and England would not join her, 
and (2) after July 30, when she knew that Sir 
Edward Grey had promised to support France and 
Russia in the defence of Servia. The question of 
Belgium had not yet arisen. 

The first reference, before July 30, occurs in a 
despatch from Berlin, July 4 (Yellow Book, Number 
9), which reads, in part: 



250 Germany's Point of View 

[Germany] hoped that Servia would give satisfaction to 
the demands which Austria might address to her, with 
a view to the search for and the prosecution of those 
concerned in the Serajevo crime. He added that he was 
confident that this would be the case, because if Servia 
acted otherwise, she would have the opinion of the whole 
civilized world against her. 

In Number 15, July 21, Servia informed Germany 
that she would accept all the Austrian demands except 
that of judicial cooperation. Germany, thereupon, 
obtained Austria's modification of this intended de- 
mand. (See above, and Number 19, *' Germany^ is 
trying to moderate Austria." ) 

In Number 16, July 21, Germany is reported as 
intending to support Austria. 

In Number 20, July 23, Austria is reported more 
conciliatory, undoubtedly at the advice of Germany, 
referred to in Number 19. She even believes that her 
note makes it possible to count on a specific denoue- 
ment. The German ambassador in Vienna is quoted 
as personally in favor of violent measures against 
Servia, but takes pains to explain that the Chancellor 
is "not quite with him." 

In Number 27, July 24, the French ambassador in 
Vienna reports an interview with the Servian min- 
ister. The latter does not deny his country's guilt, 
but adds that Servia, while willing to punish all other 
criminals, will not punish any army officers.* 

Number 28, July 24, contains a note presented to 
the French Foreign Office by Baron von Schoen, the 
German ambassador, in which the German position 
is stated. Briefly summarized, it is as follows: 

* In this refusal one may see the hand of Russia, for in 
the Balkan Report of the Carnegie Peace Endowment, it is 
.stated that many Servian officers are in the pay of Russia. 



The French Yellow Book 251 

1. Belgrade is tile active center of the agitation 
which plans to disrupt the Austro-Hungarian empire, 
and which has resulted in the murder of the archduke 
and his wife. 

2. Austria has shown *' great self-control and mod- 
eration," for the agitation goes back a number of 
years, and has been carried on " under the eyes, or at 
least with the tacit tolerance, of official Servia." 

3. The German Government ardently desires the 
localization of the conflict, since by natural play of 
alliances any intervention by another Power would 
have incalculable consequences. (The whole note 
should be read.) 

In Number 29, July 24, Jules Cambon telegraphed 
from Berlin, as follows : 

The German Emperor, through a feeling of monarchical 
solidarity and horror for the crime, is likely to show him- 
self less conciliatory. 

It will be remembered that in 191 3, Germany had 
prevented Austria from taking the punitive measures 
against Servia, which Austria had deemed necessary 
for her safety. 

On the same day, July 24, von Jagow suggested 
to the French ambassador that Servia's friends should 
give her good advice (Number 30), but from Num- 
ber 26 it appears that the only advice that France 
gave her was "to gain time." The French press, on 
the other hand, launched an attack against Germany, 
in articles headed Menace Allemande. Baron von 
Schoen, therefore, called on Martin, asking him 
to contradict these statements, and to work together 
with Germany for peace (Number 36). How M. 



252 Germany's Point of View 

Martin refused this request, for fear of appearing 
too friendly with Germany, has been told above. 

Then the general game of blindman's buff began. 
Germany wished to have the conflict localized, and 
endeavored to convince the Entente Powers of the 
justice of the Austrian cause. She told them frankly 
that Austria beheved her "security and integrity" 
at stake (Number 25), and that Germany agreed with 
her. Austria's temper, moreover, was such that to 
urge her too hard would only make matters worse 
{Blue Book J Number 107), and, while Austria' ob- 
jected to any " conference," she would be glad to listen 
to " friendly counsel " from the Entente Powers 
(Numbers 70 and 73). Since Russia felt obliged to 
uphold Servia, France (Number 62) or England 
(Number 80) should give moderating advice in St. 
Petersburg. Both refused, for they believed that Ger- 
many should make stronger presentations in Vienna, 
or, failing this, four Powers, Germany and Italy, Eng- 
land and France, should gather in a conference to settle 
this matter. 

It is almost impossible to disentangle the multifari- 
ous suggestions made, none of which were entirely 
satisfactory, either to Austria or to Russia. Austria 
believed her existence at stake, and, having been 
thwarted in 1913, was determined to punish Servia 
this time, and to make the recurrence of Servian 
intrigues impossible. Germany, therefore, while un- 
able to accept any of the proposals made by Sir 
Edward Grey, continued her pressure on Austria, 
gently but firmly, in her endeavor to get such assur- 
ances of moderation that the reasonable objections of 
Russia would be met. She transmitted Russia's re- 



The French Yellow Book 253 

quest for an extension of time (Number 41), although 
von Jagow beheved that it could not be granted. 
Strangely enough, Russia also was convinced that 
her request could not be granted (Number 45), prov- 
ing that it was only a feint. 

This happened on July 25, and on July 26 the 
French ambassador in Vienna reported that he be- 
lieved Austria was forced by circumstances to take 
military action (Number 55). This is one of the 
few despatches printed in the Yellow Book which are 
calm in tone and obviously desirous of being just. 

On the next day, July 27, Germany has succeeded 
in getting Austria's consent to some kind of a cabinet 
meeting of the four Powers, and therefore accepts 
Sir Edward Grey's proposal in principle. The case 
now stands as follows (Number 72) : Italy suggests 
that Servia submit to the just demands of Austria, 
but do so at the request of the four Powers, which 
would hurt her pride less. Germany was willing, Sir 
Edward Grey seemed favorable (British Blue Book, 
Numbers 47 and 78), and, under those conditions, 
France would have to agree. The case, therefore, was 
on the way to a settlement, when Sazonof declined to 
accept Sir Edward's offer. The reason he advanced 
was another ruse to lull Germany's suspicions, and to 
gain time. He said that Germany was continuing to 
exert a friendly influence in Vienna, and that it was 
unnecessary to take up Sir Edward's suggestion at 
present (British Blue Book, Number 78). This really 
was, so far as one can gather from the Yellozv Book, 
the last time when an amicable settlement was pos- 
sible. The opportunity had been made by Sir Edward 
Grey's proposal, Italy's ready acquiescence, and Ger- 



254 Germany's Point of View 

many's counsel, which made Austria willing to accept 
it. Austria would have gained Servia's consent to her 
demands, and Russia would have saved Servia from 
the ignominy of being coerced by her hated neighbor. 
She would have had the consolation of having yielded, 
not to Austria, but to four of the great Powers. 

One must not underrate the sacrifice Austria 
brought by her consent to this plan, for she had deter- 
mined to humble Servia, and could hardly claim to 
have done so when she herself was forced to submit 
her case to the adjudication of four Powers. The 
pressure of Germany must have been very great to 
make her willing to do this. 

With Sazonof's refusal, matters grew worse. Rus- 
sia had been, and was still, mobilizing. Austria was 
taking similar steps, and Germany was forced to 
warn the Entente Powers (Number 6y) that her 
engagements with Austria would force her to join 
Austria, if the latter was attacked. This elicited the 
reply from France (Number 74) that Germany's 
engagements with Austria were no closer than her 
own were with Russia. 

Once more Germany tried to clear the atmosphere, 
and, on July 28, Baron von Schoen presented in Paris 
a straightforward account of Germany's position 
(Number 78). Germany had not known Austria's 
ultimatum but, after it had been presented, she had 
approved of it, because Austria "had need of guar- 
antees against Servian proceedings." The French 
newspapers were in error when they stated that Ger- 
many was urging Austria on. It was impossible to 
*'pull Austria up too brusquely," and Germany only 
wanted ''to act with France for the maintenance of 



The French Yellow Book 255 

peace." For fear of displeasing Russia, France was 
unwilling to accept this invitation. 

Germany, therefore, feeling more and more con- 
vinced that Sazonof was the leading spirit in a hostile 
movement, requested Sir Edward Grey to "make 
pacific recommendations to the Russian Government." 
(Number 80.) Unfortunately, also, Sir Edward Grey 
declined to act, because " he would be much embar- 
rassed" in doing so, as he told Paul Cambon (Num- 
ber 80). 

Having failed in these attempts, von Jagow tried 
to bring Vienna and St. Petersburg into direct com- 
munication, and "to disengage Germany." (Num- 
ber 81.) This "frame of mind" was viewed with 
favor by Russia (Number 81), who, however, actively 
continued her mobilizations. And then the thirtieth of 
July brought the news that Sir Edward Grey had 
promised his support to France and Russia. Person- 
ally, he had not yet announced this to Germany, but 
from now on, Germany's chief aim was to secure a 
reversion of Sir Edward's decision. (See also the 
letter from the Belgian Minister in St. Petersburg, 
Chapter One.) 

So far as Germany's actions up to July thirtieth are 
concerned, the French Yellow Book has made it per- 
fectly clear that she did her share, and perhaps even 
more than her share, to bring about an amicable set- 
tlement of the difficulty. Her achievements were four : 
I, she induced Austria not to demand a judicial par- 
ticipation in the trial of Servian criminals ; 2, she 
secured Austria's willingness to have Servia yield to 
the advice of four Powers, rather than be compelled 
to yield to Austria ; 3, she succeeded in bringing Aus- 



256 Germany's Point of View 

tria and Russia together for a discussion of the prob- 
lem; 4, she secured the promise from Austria that 
Austria would not " aim at territorial aggrandizement, 
and that she would respect the integrity of Servia." 
She did all this in spite of the fact that she knew of 
Russia's mobilization, and was much concerned over it. 
(Number 6y.) 

After reading the Yellow Book, therefore, nobody 
can say henceforth that Germany had done nothing 
to preserve the peace of Europe. She did more than 
Russia, infinitely more than France, who did nothing, 
and, if one were to judge by the Yellow Book alone, 
more even than Sir Edward Grey, although it was he 
who brought about a condition which would have 
solved the difficulties if it had not been for the objec- 
tion of Sazonof. 



CHAPTER XIX 

THE FRENCH YELLOW BOOK 

(Concluded) 

GERMANY'S endeavors to preserve the peace 
after July 30 fall into two parts. There are, in 
the first part, the telegrams exchanged between the 
German Emperor and the Czar, and between the Em- 
peror and King George; and, in the second part, the 
steps taken by the German Foreign Office, as they 
appear from the despatches of the Yellow Book. 
Despatches Numbers 104 and 120, together with the 
British Blue Book, Numbers 121 and 123, prove that 
the Chancellor and von Jagow, as well as the Em- 
peror, were unremitting in their labors to bring Aus- 
tria and Russia together again after the pourparlers 
had been interrupted for a while. They succeeded 
in doing this, in spite of Russia's public announce- 
ment of partial mobilization (Number 91). Ger- 
many's request that Russia cease mobilizing (Num- 
ber 104) was ignored, whereupon the German general 
stafif urged the Emperor to order mobilization in 
Germany (Number 105, July 30). But, although 
neither England (Number 108) nor France (Number 
loi) denied that they were taking *' military steps," 
viz., mobilizing, Germany did not order Kriegsgefahr- 
zustand until July 31, after Russia had given orders 
for complete mobilization, both on her German and 
Austrian frontiers. A request that Russia demobilize 

257 



258 Germany's Point of View 

was ignored, whereupon Germany mobilized, as of 
August 2, (Number 128, August i). 

It was not known before the publication of the 
Yellow Book that not only Russia was fully mobiliz- 
ing, but that also England and France had begun to 
take " military steps " several days before Germany 
ordered the mobilization of her forces. Under exist- 
ing European conditions, it was impossible to avoid 
war when once the several countries were fully mobil- 
ized. When this had happened it became of second- 
ary importance where the first blow should be struck, 
and by whom. Since this is a fact, which is, even 
today, admitted by all people familiar with Europe, 
the Yellow Book has practically proved that Germany 
did not begin the war; for, on the strength of the 
French documents, it is seen that Germany was forced 
to mobilize by the mobilization of her three prospect- 
ive opponents. The despatch, moreover, quoted above 
(Number loi) proves that the many messages which 
speak of an earlier German mobilization are included 
in the Yellow Book for the purpose of misleading the 
people. The French premier himself did not believe 
them, for he would not have asked Sazonof to avoid 
any public step which could offer Germany an excuse 
for partial or complete mobilization, if he had believed 
that such mobilization had already taken place in 
Germany. 

People unfamiliar with such matters — and most of 
us were so before the war began — have denied Ger- 
many's claim that her declaration of war on Russia was 
defensive, because Russia had given orders of total 
mobilization, and was aggressive. They should read 
the remarks on this subject, uttered before the war, 



The French Yellow Book 259 

by the President of the American Society of Inter- 
national Law, Senator EHhu Root (quoted in the July, 
19 14, number of the American Journal of Interna- 
tional Law) : 

It is well understood that the exercise of the right of 
self-protection may and frequently does extend in its 
effects beyond the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of 
the state exercising it. The strongest example probably 
would be the mobilization of an army of another Power 
immediately across the frontier. Every act done by the 
other Power may be within its own territory. Yet the 
country threatened by the state of facts is justified in 
protecting itself by immediate war. 

If, then, Germany exerted herself in the first place 
to preserve the peace of Europe, and proceeded to 
mobilization only when the mobilization of her neigh- 
bors compelled her to do so, what becomes of the 
charge implied in the British Blue Book, that she is to 
blame for the war? Does the French Yellow Book 
perchance throw new light also on the position of the 
British Government? It certainly does. 

England's position appears in an entirely new light 
in the Yellow Book, and several assertions are made 
there which contradict the official statements by Sir 
Edward Grey. On July 24 (Number 32), Paul Cam- 
bon, writing from London, gives three reasons why 
the German ambassador had returned to London three 
weeks before in a pessimistic frame of mind, one of 
which is the news of a naval understanding between 
England and Russia. The existence of such an under- 
standing is not denied by Cambon, as it undoubtedly 
would have been if no naval arrangements had been 
made. The general terms of this understanding were 
given in the Russian press, and were published in 



26o Germany's Point of View 

translation in the Boston Transcript of November 4, 
19 14. (See Chapter Four.) The actual wording of 
the document is unknown. In Russia, people believed 
it to be such that it bound England to render assistance 
to Russia by naval operations in the case of a Russo- 
German war. It is also very significant that a news 
item in some American papers (see American Reviezv 
of Reviews, July, 19 14) referred to the signing of such 
a naval understanding between Russia and England 
several days before the murder at Serajevo. The 
first official reference, however, to this naval under- 
standing is contained in the French Yellow Book. 
Hereafter, Sir Edward Grey will be unable to content 
himself with a general denial, as he did in the House 
of Commons on June 12, 19 14, when he was asked to 
explain the persistent rumors concerning it. He will 
also be forced to publish the British ambassador's 
report as to what transpired in the secret debate of 
the Duma, May, 19 14, when the relations between 
Great Britain and Russia were discussed. Until now 
he has declined to do so. 

People who do not know the remarkable confidence * 
Sir Edward Grey was able to inspire in some quarters, 
will be tempted to condemn him as tricky and dis- 

* When this was written, the author was honestly desirous 
of reconciling the discrepancies between the British Blue 
Book and the French Yellow Book with the assumption that 
Sir Edward Grey was a man of honor and wished peace. 
Continued studies along these lines have, however, convinced 
the author that such an assumption is untenable. The dis- 
crepancies are too many, and their dishonest purport too 
apparent. The result of these further studies was presented 
by the author in an address before the German University 
League in New York on April 24, 191 5, and have been 
printed as chapters xxxi and xxxii of this book. See also 
The European War of 1914, by Professor John W. Burgess. 
A. C. McClurg & Co. 



The French Yellow Book 261 

honest, because the reports of what he prints as having 
said to the German ambassador rarely tally with what 
he told Paul Cambon he had said. There is, how- 
ever, another explanation which may hit the truth. 
Sir Edward was desirous of reconciling France and 
Germany, and, therefore, wished both to look upon 
him as their friend. Under such circumstances, with 
the peace of Europe as the great stake before him, 
he talked now to one, now to the other, always guided, 
his friends believed, by the desire to keep Germany 
from acting, by making her feel that England was 
not bound to take sides, and to keep France satisfied 
in her belief that he had not gone back on his word 
to her. 

If Sir Edward had not been trusted, neither the 
supposed naval agreement with Russia, nor his letter 
to Paul Cambon of November, 19 12, would have 
bound him or his country in any way. But because 
he was believed to be a man of honor, France knew 
that he would find a way of redeeming his word, if 
she succeeded in convincing him that France was in 
danger. 

At first Sir Edward Grey may have worked hard for 
the maintenance of peace, and brought about (as said 
above) the conditions under which an amicable settle- 
ment would have been possible, if Sazonof had not ob- 
jected. After the failure of this plan and under the 
constant prodding of France he apparently realized 
that war was inevitable, that his understandings — 
with France and Russia — would force him to shape 
public opinion in a way which would enable him to 
redeem his word, in short that he was committed to 
war. His only hope was to induce Germany and 



262 Germany's Point of View 

Austria to yield every point, since Russia was 
adamant. He then sent this impassioned appeal to 
Berlin : 

If the peace of Europe can be preserved and the present 
crisis safely passed, my own endeavor will be to promote 
some arrangement to which Germany could be a party by 
which she could be assured that no aggressive or hostile 
policy would be pursued against her or her allies by France, 
Russia, and ourselves jointly or separately. I have desired 
this and worked for it as far as I could through the last 
Balkan crisis, and Germany having a corresponding object, 
our relations sensibly improved. The idea had hitherto 
been too Utopian to form the subject of definite proposals, 
but if this present crisis, so much more acute than any that 
Europe has gone through for generations, be safely passed, 
I am hopeful that the relief and reaction which will follow 
may make possible some more definite rapprochement be- 
tween the Powers than has been possible hitherto. 
(British Blue Book Number loi.) 

This appeal failed. Nothing but absolute faith, not 
only in the honesty of the man who made it, but also 
in his ability to carry it out, could have induced Ger- 
many to accept Sir Edward's offer. Can Germany 
be blamed? The very promise that in the future 
" Germany could be assured that no aggressive or hos- 
tile policy were to be pursued against her " implies 
that heretofore she could not have felt sure of this. 

When even this last appeal failed. Sir Edward was 
faced by a still greater problem, how to induce the 
British cabinet, and next the country and Parliament, 
to help him redeem his word. On this score the Yel- 
low Book offers abundant evidence. It is here sum- 
marized without further comment. Circumstances 
were too strong for Sir Edward Grey. Paul Cambon 
was the Mephisto and Sazonof the stage director. 

So far as Great Britain was concerned, the following 



The French Yellow Book 263 

had been, before the publication of the French docu- 
ments, the known order of events : 

Aiugust I. Germany's request that England formu- 
late conditions under which she would remain neutral ; 
Britain's refusal, because Sir Edward said, " we must 
keep our hands free." 

August 2. In the afternoon, assurances of British 
support in case of war given to France, and not made 
contingent on any infringement of Belgian neutrality. 
This official promise was first made public in Parlia- 
ment August 3. 

August J. Sir Edward Grey's great speech in Par- 
liament. 

Turning now to the Yellow Book, Number 106, July 
31, and reading Paul Cambon's report of Sir Edward 
Grey's statement to him, one finds as follows : 

1. The British cabinet, in meeting, have voted that 
as yet, they cannot guarantee that they will intervene. 

2. Personally, however. Sir Edward Grey promises 
intervention, for he tells Cambon that he told Germany 
that " if France is involved England will be dragged 
in." 

3. Sir Edward, therefore, gave personal assurances 
at variance with the decisions of the cabinet. 

4. The question of securing guarantees for Bel- 
gium is now broached for the first time. 

5. Cambon's appeal, "will you wait until we are 
invaded or repeat the mistake of Europe of 1870?" 

6. The under secretary of state's confidential assur- 
ance that Sir Edward would bring the matter before 
the cabinet again on the next day. 



264 Germany's Point of View 

The next day was August i. The Cabinet met 
again, but again (Number 126) no intervention in 
favor of France was voted. Cambon goes on reporting 
as follows: 

1. Sir Edward has refused Germany's request to 
promise neutrality. 

2. Germany's reply concerning Belgium is unsatis- 
factory. 

3. Sir Edward makes his personal promises to Cam- 
bon that tomorrow he will propose to the Cabinet r— 

(a) That England will not permit the violation of 
the neutrality of Belgium. 

(b) Since the English squadrons are mobilized, etc. 
[Then followed the guarantee of intervention men- 
tioned by Sir Edward in Parliament.] 

This was on August i, and that means that Sir 
Edward renewed his personal promise of support to 
Cambon, in spite of a vote of the Cabinet to the con- 
trary, and that he gave his assurance that he would 
again ask the Cabinet to ratify it, on the very day 
on which he told Germany that he could formulate 
no conditions under which England would remain 
neutral, because England had to ''keep her hands 
free." 

While the Yellozv Book thus casts very serious as- 
persions on Sir Edward Grey and seems to justify all 
the bitterness which Germany has felt, it completely 
exonerates the British Cabinet and the British people. 
Germany has felt that the Belgian question was merely 
a pretext. So it was for Sir Edward Grey. For the 
Cabinet, however, it was the deciding factor. Twice, 
on July 31, and again on August i, the Cabinet refused 



The French Yellow Book 265 

to promise their armed support to France. They did 
so in the face of the undoubtedly strong pressure of 
Sir Edward Grey and Mr. Churchill, who, without 
authority, had ordered the mobilization of the fleet 
on July 24 (Number 66). Would the Cabinet have 
yielded if Germany's promise not to invade Belgium 
{Blue Book No. 123) had been reported to it? If it 
had not yielded, Sir Edward Grey would have been 
obliged to resign. There was no alternative. But 
would Great Britain have been willing to lose at that 
most critical time the services of a man whom the 
people at large considered exceptionally capable and 
upright, however severely some individuals had criti- 
cized * his methods ? 

The result of this remarkable dilemma was that 
Germany went through Belgium because she knew 
that England would go to war, thus piling up the odds 
against her to a terrifying extent. And England went 
to war against Germany to prevent what only the 
certainty of her going to war made it necessary for 
Germany to do. 

The man who brought this to pass was Sir Edward 
Grey, not necessarily because he was tricky, but be- 
cause foreign diplomats trusted him. His mere word, 
his personal letter to the French ambassador, a mili- 
tary conversation entered into between British and for- 
eign general staffs under his direction — these were 
the ties that fettered his country, because they were 
incautiously spun by a man who had the reputation] 
of being honest. They fettered England, in fact, far 

* For a severe arraignment see G. H. Ferris, Our Foreign 
Policy and Sir Edward Grey's Failure, London, 1912, and 
the chapter on World Policies in Germany and the German 
Emperor, by the same author. 



266 Germany's Point of View 

more firmly than treaties of doubtful phraseology 
could have done. 

If Sir Edward Grey should really be innocent, pity, 
rather than scorn, should be offered him. When he 
reviews the whole case in the light of the French Yel- 
low Books and sees what through those nerve- wrecking 
days Paul Cambon, by his many false and exaggerated 
reports, tried to keep from him, that Germany was hon- 
estly anxious for peace, and had been eagerly working 
for it; when he sees that France had done absolutely 
nothing, and that Russia had never wavered from her 
determination to force a war unless Austria yielded 
every point,* he may well ask himself : Were these 
people worth the sacrifice of England? Would it not 
have been better to make a clean breast of it, to in- 
sist upon the Cabinet's refusing to redeem his prom- 
ises, and to retire rather than redeem his word under 
such conditions? 

But, why were Russia and France so determined to 
force a war at this time, when it is well known that 
neither was as well prepared as both expected to be 
two years hence? Because this was probably the last 
time they could count on the support of England. As 
Sir Edward Grey said in his final offer to Germany, 
Germany and England, separated by mutual jealousy 
for many years, were nearing a rapprochement. Three 
years of incessant labor by the German chancellor had 
not been in vain, the absolute humaneness and honesty 

* It is often said that Servia agreed to all of Austria's de- 
mands but one. This is, however, very erroneous, although 
most American papers have innocently repeated this false- 
hood. For the facts in the case see the Austrian Red Book, 
and Austria-Hungary and the War, by Ernest Ludwig, J. S. 
Ogilvie Publishing Company, 191 5. 



The French Yellow Book 267 

of von Bethmann-Hollweg had begun to tell. Lish- 
nowsky in London, and von Schoen in Paris, had been 
sent there, not because they are great diplomats, which 
some say they are not, but because they were singularly 
straightforward men. Nature had made them straight. 
In Paris no success had been scored. In London, how- 
ever, the feeling that Germany really wished to live 
in peace with England, had begun to take hold. If it 
had not. Sir Edward never could have made his final 
offer, quoted above, coupled with the promise that in 
the future he would prevent hostile moves against 
Germany. Fortunately for France, Germany's experi- 
ence was not such that she felt justified in believing 
Sir Edward's unguaranteed promise. 

As for the English people, there are — in spite of 
Bernard Shaw — few who are not convinced that they 
are fighting Germany for the sake of Belgium. This 
can be acknowledged without in the least detracting 
from the justice of the case of Germany. It should be 
acknowledged, and should be widely spread, for noth- 
ing has fanned the English hatred in Germany more 
than the erroneous belief that the devious course of 
Sir Edward had been that of the British people. 

But why, it may be asked, should the Germans abate 
their hate of England before the English abate their 
hate of Germany? Because God has laid into the 
German character, a quality, which many nations lack. 
They have the gift of perceiving and understanding 
and liking the good qualities of other people. Shakes- 
peare is more read and played in Germany than in 
England and America together. Emerson, Royce, and 
James have influenced larger numbers of German than 
American students. English, French, Russian, Italian, 



268 Germany's Point of View 

and other foreign books are more frequently read in 
Germany than anywhere else. Let the Germans, 
therefore, understand that not even the British Cabi- 
net voted to go against them until it was shown that 
they would go through Belgium, and they will feel 
convinced that a future understanding with England 
is not impossible. 

The French Yellow Book may, therefore, achieve a 
great many things, although it explicitly disproves 
the one thing that it was meant to show. It does not 
exonerate France, unless you call it honor to follow 
blindly in the tracks of a big ally. But it does exon- 
erate Germany and it exonerates the British Cabinet 
and the British people. The present war, after all, is 
a gigantic struggle between the Anglo-Saxon and the 
Teutons, because these two peoples believed that they 
could no longer inhabit the earth together. The French 
have done their part to foster this erroneous notion, 
and the Russians have been willing to profit by it. 
Thanks, therefore, to the French, who in their Yellow 
Book, have shown the error of this notion, there is no 
reason why the mutual English-German hatred should 
not cease, for the Yellow Book has proved that neith- 
er the Germans nor the English people, as such, are 
responsible for this war. 



CHAPTER XX ' 

GERMAN SCIENTISTS ON THE WAR 

A BOSTON scientist sent a circular letter to sev- 
eral German colleagues in November, 19 14, and 
when he had received their replies turned the entire 
correspondence over to the writer, with permission to 
translate and publish such letters as he wished. Lack 
of space alone prevents the publication of the whole 
correspondence. 

The circular letter was dated Boston, November 13, 
1914, and read in part as follows : 

To My German Scientific Friends : It is impossible 
for anyone in Germany to appreciate the strange attitude 
of America towards Germany in this great war. An 
analysis of the situation leads me to think that it is in 
large part due to the very strong belief in America that 
Germany committed a frightful crime in violating the 
neutrality of Belgium. 

Having lived in Germany for one year as a student 
in Heidelberg, having the warmest and closest personal 
friendly relations with so many Germans and Austrians, 
it is to me obviously impossible to divert my sympathy 
from Germany to the Allies until more evidence is forth- 
coming. 

At the outbreak of hostilities I recognized, as I think 
few Americans did, that the information we received 
came wholly through English and French sources, and 
hence obviously was partisan. 

The most serious criticism of all is what appears to 
have been a frightful destruction of a neutral nation, 
Belgium. . . . 

I have personally felt, as a warm friend of Germany, 
that all of the evidence with regard to the German claim 

269 



270 Germany's Point of View 

that the violation of the neutrality of Belgium was justi- 
fiable should be given, if there is any intention to convince 
Americans that the ground of action against Belgium 
was justifiable. ... 

The following reply was received from Dr. Ad. 
Schmidt, director of the Medical Clinic in Halle, who 
made a visit to America a year ago : 

My Dear Colleague : The greatest mistake of our Gov- 
ernment, we are convinced, was that in times of peace 
the position of Germany was not sufficiently made known 
in foreign countries. This mistake was so greaf^ that 
it can be said to be second only to the failures of our 
diplomacy. Both, however, are explained by that quality 
of the German character which is expressed in the 
proverb, " Lies have short legs, truth will be known." 
Relying on the justice of his cause and on his achieve- 
ments, the German rejects with disdain the obligation to 
fight with words against the calumnies of his opponents. 
Long before the war we should have taken care to have 
the world know that definite agreements existed between 
France, England and Belgium, which would make it im- 
possible for the latter country to maintain its neutrality. 
Since we did not do this, the publication of these agree- 
ments, even though they have been strengthened by the 
discovery of some of the original documents, give the 
impression of a belated excuse. 

There is not a man in Germany who does not charge 
England with being the ultimate cause of this war. With- 
out definite assurances of England, neither France nor 
Russia would have dared to begin the war. If one should 
wish to make another country morally responsible for the 
war, then this country is Belgium, which was not willing 
to defend its neutrality against France as Switzerland has 
done. You understand that I am speaking of moral re- 
sponsibilities, for it is perfectly superfluous to discuss the 
question who gave the final impetus to the war. The 
powder magazine was ready and the least event capable 
of producing a spark had to result in an explosion. 

We had all felt that we should be obliged to fight once 
more against France, but among all educated people there 
is today only one feeling, namely of exceeding sorrow 



German Scientists on the War 271 

for the French in their infatuation. We do not hate them, 
nor do we hate the Belgians, and there is no doubt that 
we should have given to the latter every possible satis- 
faction for marching through their country. But then 
there came the detestable horrors of the franc-tireurs, 
who were much worse than the public has ever known. 
Could our officers and soldiers be expected to suffer them 
without the least retaliation? That we destroyed nothing 
from the mere lust of destroying is sufficiently proved by 
the fact that Brussels, Ghent, Liege and other cities have 
suffered no harm whatsoever, and even in Louvain, the 
cathedral has been saved because the German soldiers 
themselves worked hard to keep it from destruction. 

It was the same with Rheims. I have just read a 
letter from an army chaplain who was before Rheims and 
who writes that strict orders had been given not to bom- 
bard the cathedral, until it appeared that the French, 
knowing that this would be our course, had established a 
permanent post of observation on one of the towers of 
the cathedral and drawn up their batteries in front of 
the cathedral. Even then, four days elapsed before we 
finally felt obliged to direct the fire against the church. 
It was an absolute necessity and the proverb ''Not kennt 
kein Gehot" has never been so true as in this war, on 
the result of which our whole existence depends. Every- 
body in Germany knows instinctively that we should cease 
for centuries to be a state of civilizing power and world 
influence if our foes should succeed in striking us to 
the ground, and these foes are almost the whole world. 
This explains the grim determination of every soldier, 
of every single German, to fight to the last drop of Ger- 
man blood. 

Our enemies are waging against us a war of destruc- 
tion, a war of life and death, and not a sporting war 
such as America carried on against the Cubans and 
Spaniards. 

Read the enclosed news item, and will you still expect 
us to spare our enemies and their monuments? We shall 
do so nevertheless, for that is the German character, but 
only so long as it can be done without jeopardizing our 
safety. 

Let me tell you just one of my experiences. It speaks 
volumes. Among the first wounded that came to my hos- 
pital was a married landwehrmann from near Halle, who 



272 Germany's Point of View 

had a wife and four children at home. He had been in 
Belgium in the thick of the fight with the franc-tireurs 
and had been obliged to see Belgian inhabitants treacher- 
ously attack our soldiers and kill them while they slept. 
These people were shot. Of one family only a little four- 
year-old child was left and this child the old landwehr- 
mann had taken home with him to his wife, and adopted 
the little waif. Are these the cruel Germans, the bar- 
barians, the beasts? 

Your faithful friend, 

(Signed) Dr. A. D. Schmidt. 

The second letter was written by Professor Dr. Al- 
brecht Kossel, professor of physiology in the Univer- 
sity of Heidelberg, winner of the Nobel prize in medi- 
cine about three years ago. It reads : 

Heidelberg, December 21, 1914. 

Dear Friend: You have given me great pleasure with 
your letter of November 13. We do not want anything 
except justice from those in foreign lands, but since we 
have not received this it is especially satisfying to hear 
your friendly and cordial views. I heartily thank you 
for your understanding and for your good will. 

I have no intention of blaming those Americans whose 
sympathies are with the English, for I know that these 
sympathies are very largely determined by blood rela- 
tionship and are only in part due to one-sided or erro- 
neous news. I also know that it is very difficult to over- 
come a prejudice which has been formed as the result 
of first impressions. Ov/ing to the cutting of the cables 
your first impressions had to be unfavorable to us. 

In the first place, America will not appreciate the 
extreme danger in which Germany has found herself for 
several decades. In a country like America, whose fron- 
tiers are threatened by no enemy, no one can imagine 
the necessity of a fight of desperation, and cannot there- 
fore understand the actions of a people which is obliged to 
fight for its existence because it is attacked by an over- 
powering combination of enemies, some of whom are en- 
tirely barbarous. 

Our American critics have almost invariably based their 



German Scientists on the War 273 

judgment on the reports and documents which are con- 
tained in the English and German White papers. I be- 
lieve you are right in explaining their respective effect 
by the fact that the English know better than the Ger- 
mans how the American mind works and how it can be 
influenced. The very choice of the documents is of great 
importance. Even Shaw, who is surely no friend of the 
Germans, has pointed out that the omission from the 
official English Blue Book of the dignified and impressive 
telegrams of the German Emperor to the Czar of Russia 
was, to say the least, not chivalrous. Those documents, 
however, which would have influenced the judgment of 
the American people most definitely were not published 
by England. I mean the strategic arrangements between 
England and Belgium. Only a most fortunate accident 
has made it possible to bring fragments of these arrange- 
ments to the notice of the public. 

The Americans, it seems to me, are charging our 
country with two things : Our starting the world war 
and our march through Belgium. And yet it is in- 
credible that our Government should have urged us into 
a war which could bring us no advantages, but could 
only result in losses and untold dangers to our existence 
and the civilization of Germany ! 

The description of how the war began would fill a 
book. Everybody knows that Russia was yearning for 
the possession of Constantinople ; that her way to Con- 
stantinople would have to go through Vienna, and that 
the whole of Russia's policy aimed at undermining Austria 
with the assistance of Servia. Russia intended to deprive 
Austria of an access to the sea and thus to throttle her. 
Our fate, however, was identical with that of Austria. 

Russia had begun her mobilization in the spring,* as is 
proved by the appearance of Asiatic army corps on our 
frontier at the very beginning of the war, while it is 
known that their transportation must have consumed 
months. There are also other infallible signs to the same 
effect, for instance the tone of the official Russian organ 
(Ruski invalid), on the occasion of the visit of the French 
president. Russia's firm determination to commence the 

*In substantiation of this assertion see the files of the 
American press during the Spring months of 1914, and espe- 
cially the American Review of Reviezvs from April to July, 
1914. 



274 Germany's Point of View 

war could not be influenced even by the peaceful en- 
deavors of the German Emperor, especially since the Eng- 
lish ambassador in St. Petersburg exerted his influence 
to the extent that Russia's proposals to Austria should be 
made even less acceptable* than they had been at first. 
Our enemies had placed the noose around our neck. We 
had to tear it before they pulled it taut. 

When v^ar between Germany and Austria on the one 
hand and Russia and France on the other had been de- 
clared, our position regarding Belgium began to be dif- 
ficult. The strength of the Belgian fortresses was di- 
rected against us. We knew that French oflicers were 
in these fortresses and that Belgium had permitted 
French airmen to fly across her territory. A fairly-large 
number of French oflicers and men, moreover, who had 
passed through Belgium in automobiles in order to enter 
Germany, were captured on the German-Belgium frontier. 

The English Government in an interview with the Ger- 
man ambassador had refused to formulate conditions 
under which England would remain neutral. The Eng- 
lish Government was hostile to us and its participation 
in the war seemed to be only a question of time. 

Those who disapprove of our entrance into Belgium 
demand that we should have begun our war against 
France under most threatening conditions, with two 
enemies in our rear, Belgium and England. The docu- 
ments which have been found prove what would have 
happened if we had done this. They show that Belgium 
had made arrangements with one of the participants of 
the Triple Entente, with England, to prepare for a war 
against us. If we should have left our rear toward Bel- 
gium unprotected we should have been at the mercy of 
England, who could have fallen into our rear at any 
moment she chose to go through Belgium, and there is 
no doubtf that she would have done this. Under such 



* See French Yellozv Book, Numbers 103 and 113. 

t In substantiation of this assertion see Lord Roberts' decla- 
ration of August, 1913, quoted in The Fatherland, March 17, 
1915, that in August, 191 1, the British expeditionary force 
was held "in readiness instantly to embark for Flanders to 
do its share in maintaining the balance of power in Europe." 
Lord Roberts does not make the invasion of Belgium de- 
pendent on a previous infringement of Belgian "neutrality" 
by Germany. 



German Scientists on the War 275 

conditions the fate of Germany would have been sealed. 
By this agreement with England Belgium had surrendered 
its neutral position and had made all the acts of neutrality 
a scrap of paper. This is our view of the wrong we 
have done. 

It is evident that the responsibility for the misfortune 
of Belgium does not rest with the people but with their 
Government, who had taken part in the conspiracy against 
us ; but he who makes a fortress of his house by shooting 
from its windows must not be astonished if his house is 
treated like a fortress and is drawn into the whirlpool 
of war. 

When Germany is blamed for its militarism such re- 
proaches appear to us especially unjust. It is a fact that 
France has spent more money for her army in comparison 
to her population than Germany, and that Russia has 
actually spent more than either.* The real seat of Euro- 
pean militarism is England, who claims control of the 
sea. The history of the last decades has proved over and 
over again that the militarism of England aims at con- 
quests (Transvaal, Egypt, Persia, and Cyprus). Ger- 
many has been sufficiently taught by her past history that 
it is necessary for her to be prepared against her neigh- 
bors. And the ruins of the tower of the Castle of Heidel- 
berg are not the only sign of the fate which will be ours 
as soon as we renounce the protection that our army can 
give us. Germany's militarism is defensive; England's 
militarism is aggressive. 

The time when our neighbors overran and despoiled 
our unprotected country was the time when the French 
stole from us Strassburg. As a child I often doubted 
the justice of the order of things in this world because 
this German land, the seat of our old German civiliza- 
tion, continued to be in the hands of strangers, and this 
was the feeling of the whole of Germany. Did we commit 
an act of injustice when we took back what had been 
stolen from us and tried to secure its permanent posses- 
sion by fortifying our frontiers ? 

The papers of the last days have told us that our 
enemies are now using the monopoly of the cable com- 
munications which they possess for spreading false ac- 



* See the chapter on "Militarism" in the author's What 
Germany Wants. 



276 Germany's Point of View 

cusations against Germany concerning the bombardment 
of English coast towns. They claim that these places 
were unfortified. This is incorrect. Hartlepool is strongly 
fortified; Scarborough also has a fort and Whitby a 
coast guard and signal station. The fire of our ships was 
directed only against this station. Compare with this 
what has happened in my immediate neighborhood: An 
open city, situated entirely outside the sphere of war 
operations, Freiburg, has been hit by bombs thrown from 
flying machines of the Allies. I suppose you have not 
read in your papers that on this occasion innocent by- 
standers were killed and others were wounded. 

But it is not my intention to deal with the actions of 
our enemies, which run counter to the conventions of 
the Hague conference and humanity. I do not care to 
condemn the Allies; I only wish to explain to you what 
we have done. 

Only one thing more I wish to mention, and that is 
that as the result of English interference with the mail 
of neutral America, your earlier letters to me have not 
reached me. 

Your faithful friend, 

(Signed) Dr. Albrecht Kossel. 

The third letter was written by Professor Dr. J. E. 
Johansson, director of the Karolinska Institute, De- 
partment of Physiology, University of Stockholm, and 
is particularly interesting as throwing a light upon what 
seems to be debatable ground, namely, the attitude of 
the Swedes. Unlike the other letters it is not a reply 
to the circular note, but was written earlier. It reads : 

Stockholm, November 8, 1914. 

Dear Colleague: Hearty thanks for your friendly 
greetings. In these times we are warmly grateful for 
words from our friends in foreign lands. 

We are not yet surrounded but every day our relations 
with the outer world are more and more restricted. We 
have received several letters from Freiburg. The Ger- 
mans are continuing to be hopeful and to develop a 
strength which fills us with admiration, but how long will 



German Scientists on the War 2yy 

they be able to withstand? If the Germans should be 
beaten we are afraid that our turn will be next. An 
English fleet in the Baltic will be very disagreeable for 
us. We are continuing our work in the laboratory but 
our young men are being called to the colors one by one, 
and if the war should be pushed into the Baltic then we 
should have to protect our coast. What the end will be 
— what's the use of troubling one's head about that now ? 
With kind regards, yours, 

(Signed) J. E. Johansson. 

The last letter is another communication from Dr. 
A. D. Schmidt, of Halle, and reads : 

Halle, December 17, 1914. 

My Dear Colleague: So far as I can see, we do not 
claim that Belgium, together with France and England, 
had planned an invasion of Germany, but that it has had 
for a long while definite diplomatic and military arrange- 
ments with England and France while it has never tried 
to get in touch with Germany, and has certainly never 
considered how it would be able to maintain its neutrality 
also against the powers of the West. A neutral State, 
however, it seems to us, must do one of two things : 
Either it must arm itself sufficiently — as Switzerland has 
done — to protect its frontiers against the invasion of any 
enemy, or it must not make any martial preparations at 
all, and trust that the great Powers which have guar- 
anteed its neutrality will respect it. To act as Belgium 
did, evidently under the strong compulsion of the entente 
Powers, namely, to enter into definite military arrange- 
ments with one side only, is not an act of neutrality. It 
is hypocrisy. It is taking sides secretly and that is much 
worse than taking sides openly. In this connection you 
may be interested in the article " New Proofs of Guilt " 
in Number 586 of the Hallesche Zeitung and in " A Neu- 
tral Judgment," in Number 603 of the Tdgliche Rundschau. 

I was especially interested in your view of the German 
aims when the war began, especially your belief that 
Germany hoped to be able to extend its influence in the 
Balkans by restricting the war to Austria and Servia. 
I can assure you that no man in Germany has thought, 
or is even today thinking, anything of the kind. Nobody 



278 Germany's Point of View 

in Germany, and least of all the German chancellor, has 
looked for conquests. All of us feel that this is exclusively 
a defensive war in which our existence is at stake, thanks 
to the policy of King Edward vii^ who wished to place 
an iron ring about us. This accounts for our unanimity, 
for our grim determination, for our enthusiasm and for 
the readiness everywhere in Germany to sacrifice every- 
thing — to an extent even which greatly exceeds what was 
done in 1814. And from this point of view the war will 
comprise, however it may result, one of the most inspiring 
chapters of the history of the world. I can grant to you 
only this, that all people in Germany who had any knowl- 
edge of European affairs, were agreed that it was our 
duty to assist Austria against Russia. Austria is the 
bulwark of Germanism against Slavism, and if ever there 
has been a war of the races this is such a one. 

This, however, is the disgusting part of the whole 
affair — and no German will ever forget it — that England, 
our nearest racial relative, took the side of the Slavs in 
this war, not to prevent the destruction of France but 
to get rid of an inconvenient rival in the markets of the 
world, and what is even worse than this, England is 
calling out against her blood relatives not only her 
colonies but also the lower races of the world.'*' I fail 
to understand how the Americans, who are endowed with 
a very strong sense of justice, can get over these actions 
of England. We have always seen in America the country 
which was to bring about the amalgamation of the Eng- 
lish and the German interests, and I came home from 
my visit to America with the distinct impression that your 
country would be able to do this, but now the war may 
have torn a cleft also in your magnificent national system 
and may have rendered this amalgamation illusory for 
a long time to come. This at least is the painful impres- 
sion which I have gathered from your letters and from 
those of other American friends. 

Let this be enough for today. All educated people in 
Germany regret this terrible war just as much as you 



* Just as England called the savage Indians to her assistance 
in the American War of Independence, and set a price on the 
scalps of the Americans. See B. J. Lossing The Pictorial 
Field Book of the Revolution, pp. 159, 235, and 239, also 
" German Viewpoints," Boston Transcript, April 30 and May 
5, 1915. 



German Scientists on the War 279 

do and are hoping with you that it may soon be ended. 
Our wishes are that we may emerge from it not only 
with honor but also free from the fetters which England 
wished to impose upon us and our commerce and cultural 
development. Let me assure you that nobody here thinks 
of extending his feelings toward England to include also 
America. On the contrary, we wish to keep our relations 
with you untarnished in spite of our momentary differ- 
ences of opinion. 

Most cordially yours, 

(Signed) Dr. A. D. Schmidt. 



CHAPTER XXI 

THE GERMAN FOOD SUPPLY 

WHEN England was unable in the South African 
War to beat the Boers man to man, and accord- 
ing to the established rules of warfare, she had recourse 
to an invention of her own : the concentration camps, 
in which 30,000 women and children died, or, as 
the finer type of Englishmen used to say, " were mur- 
dered," because the English disregard of even the 
ordinary care under which human beings can live 
was the cause of their death. 

The great success which Lord Roberts and Lord 
Kitchener had with this novel mode of warfare in 
South Africa induced the British Government to try 
it on a bigger scale in the present war, and to make 
one huge concentration camp of Germany and Aus- 
tria, in which to starve the non-combatants, women 
and children. Unable to beat the German and Aus- 
trian soldiers, whom they greatly outnumber, the 
Allies hope to reduce them to submission when famine 
stalks through the country. The horrors incident to 
a war in which Gurkas, Turkos, and cannibal negroes, 
seventy thousand American horses, and hundreds of 
millions of dollars' worth of American munitions of 
war are allied on the side of England, France, and 
Russia are to be multiplied a thousand-fold by the 
thought that at home the dear ones are dying of 
starvation. 

280 



The German Food Supply 281 

If Germany had planned this war, she would have 
provided for such a contingency by filling her store- 
houses with grain and meat to last her through one 
or even more years. But she did not do this, and 
since the so-called neutral nations have been unwilling 
to force England to abide by the established rule that 
provisions for the civil population of a belligerent are 
to pass unhindered. Sir Edward Grey has been able 
to bring about conditions under which any large 
industrial State like Germany might be expected to 
starve. 

Will Germany starve? This was the question of 
paramount interest during the winter months of 1914- 
15. Strange as it may seem, its answer may determine 
the victor of the war. For, if the English policy seems 
likely to force Germany to surrender because of lack 
of food, the Entente will be able to survive the disap- 
pointments of the first ten months. If, on the other 
hand, it appears that Germany can subsist for years 
without the importation of food, then the conviction 
that her military strength is irrefragable may induce 
either Russia or France, or both, to look with favor on 
any proposal which relieves them of a bargain in which 
their life blood is spilled to maintain England in the 
position of an aristocrat among the nations — one who 
claims not only superiority but also supremacy in the 
world. 

The importance of this question, therefore, has led 
to much speculation, in a great deal of which the wish 
has been father to the thought. Fortunately, however, 
it has also been investigated by a number of scientists 
in a perfectly calm spirit, and according to approved 
laboratory methods. Sixteen men and women joined 



282 : Germany's Point of View 

in this voluntary investigation, a labor of love for the 
Fatherland. They numbered among them not only 
experts in science and practical agriculture, but also 
authorities on the distribution of food, on fertilizers, 
the manufacture of beer, and alcohol, starch, etc., and 
the German industries as a whole. After weeks of 
exhaustive study they published their conclusions in 
a large pamphlet, which has just reached America. 
[Die Deutsch Volksermhrung und der Englische Aus- 
hungerungsplan, The Food Supply of the German 
People and the English Plan of Starving Them, pub- 
lished by Paul Eltzbacher, with Vieweg and Son, in 
Braunschweig.] 

Starting with the assumption that England's wars 
are preeminently economic, and that she intends to 
win the present one by starving her opponents, the 
following quotation is given from the London maga- 
zine. The Financier (here re-translated from the 
German) : 

Germany is on the point of losing for ten years or longer 
not only the big markets of Russia, France, and Belgium, 
but also those of the whole English-speaking race. The 
German foreign trade has suddenly ceased, and it is our 
duty to see that it will never start again. What Germany 
has achieved by years of painstaking labor has suddenly 
been given into our hands. So long as we control the 
routes of the great oceans, and if we improve our oppor- 
tunity, the complaint of German commercial competition 
will not again be heard, at least in our lifetime. 

The British Government, in an endeavor to seize 
their opportunity, have established in London a sample 
depot of German wares, with a list where the goods 
are sold, at what cost, and in what quantities, and 
with suggestions how this trade can be diverted to 
England. 



The German Food Supply 283 

It may not be idle to state here, in parenthesis, that 
the EngHsh objections to an American ship-purchase 
bill was not so much due to the fear that it might inure 
to the benefit of Germany, as to England's unwill- 
ingness to let America or any other country supply 
the markets from which Germany has been tempo- 
rarily obliged to withdraw. 

The German scientists, however, have drawn from 
England's action merely the conclusion that Germany 
will have to regard itself as an industrial and com- 
mercial unit, which is cut off from the rest of the 
world for the time being. Austria-Hungary is in 
a somewhat better condition, because it is less densely 
populated, and because it can, for the present at least, 
import enough food from Roumania and other Balkan 
States. Some importations from the Scandinavian 
countries, and later, if luck favors the Turks, also 
from Egypt, may alleviate the needs of Germany. 
Both these sources of supply, however, are uncertain, 
and it is better to investigate what Germany can do 
alone, if she should be compelled to rely entirely 
on her own resources. 

Nor is it enough to figure on a brief war, because 
England has always shown great tenacity, and when 
the odds have been greatest against her, as in the 
Napoleonic and the Boer wars, has exhibited a won- 
derful degree of endurance. She has probably never 
before suffered so severely as at present, because 
Germany was her best customer, and for some of her 
industries she can find no substitutes for the goods 
which she used to import from Germany. Unable to 
get, by fair means, the German dyestuffs, without 
which her cloth industry is languishing, and jealous 



284 Germany's Point of View 

of seeing this trade go to America, she has declared 
that she will confiscate all German exports to America, 
her excuse being that she wishes to retaliate on Ger- 
many. But even the most English friendly people may 
be expected to see through this pretext. 

The German navy, moreover, has disarranged Eng- 
lish shipping and hushed the noise of the machinery 
in many a factory, while the complete absence of any 
freight to be transshipped to Germany has thrown 
a good many people out of employment. The number 
of the recruits to this army of the unemployed is 
greater than that of the recruits to Kitchener's army ; 
a fact which adds to her economic difficulties, and 
would presage an early peace unless she felt obliged 
to go on playing, or lose the enormous stakes she 
made when she entered the game. 

All this makes it incumbent upon Germany to fig- 
ure on a long war, not to mention the fact that the best 
means of having a short war is to be prepared for a 
long one. 

In preparing, therefore, for an economic existence, 
in spite of the English plans of starvation, German 
economists had to readjust their ideas. As long as 
Germany was an interested member of the economy 
of the world, production was her chief aim. As soon 
as England tried to restrict her to her own national 
resources, consumption had to become her chief con- 
cern. Instead of asking, as formerly: "What can we 
produce for sale in the best markets ? " Germany has 
been compelled to ask today, " What do we need in 
the Way of food, clothing, heat, and so forth, and how 
can we satisfy these needs ourselves?" 

During the first weeks of the war many people in 



The German Food Supply 285 

the German industrial centers were out of work, while 
farmers, on the other hand, were often without help. 
Formerly the Government would have tried to alleviate 
the needs of the unemployed first ; during a war it is 
more important to supply the lack of help in the coun- 
try. Ordinarily no investments are made except those 
which promise good returns ; at present, however, any 
establishment which serves to increase the food supply 
— as, for instance, communal plants for the drying of 
potatoes — should be called into existence. 

While Germany's industrial life was entwined with 
that of the world, the individual enjoyed the greatest 
freedom, and was encouraged to make his own experi- 
ments. Under altered conditions the state will have 
to assume greater responsibilities, and regulate the 
national consumption in the interest of all the people. 
It will have to place embargoes on the export of any- 
thing needed, or, by fixing highest or lowest prices, 
regulate the consumption of any one article. The suc- 
cess of such measures, however, will depend on the 
response of the people. In times of need everybody 
must become somewhat of a Socialist ! 

The first step in the investigation of whether Ger- 
many can feed her seventy million people without out- 
side help is to inquire whether any markets will con- 
tinue to be at her disposal. 

From Holland, Germany used to import meat, but- 
ter, cheese, and fish. Holland, however, was able to 
export meat and butter only because she imported 
millions of tons of food for her cattle. During the 
war her imports will be irregular and much smaller, a 
fact which will show in a decreased exportation of 
food to Germany. 



286 Germany's Point of View 

The same is true of Denmark, whose exportation of 
cattle and other farm products is dependent on an 
importation of approximately one million tons of grain 
and fodder. When this importation is cut off by the 
war the Danish will be obhged to curtail the number 
of their cattle and milch cows, and will not produce 
enough to supply their former German markets. 

Sweden and Norway have always been dependent 
on the importation of grain, for the former produces 
only about four-fifths of what she needs, while the 
latter has never been able to grow more grain than to 
supply one-eighth of her demand. It is therefore 
impossible to look to either of these countries for 
anything beyond the importation of fish. 

Switzerland used to sell to Germany some cheese, 
but since her dense population and mountainous soil 
renders her dependent on the importation of grain and 
often even of fodder she will need every ounce of her 
food at home. Italy has rarely had to sell anything 
but her fruits, for her demand of wheat and corn has 
generally exceeded her production by one and one-half 
million tons. 

Roumania, on the other hand, is a grain exporting 
country. Unfortunately, however, both the Roumanian 
and the Hungarian harvests were poor last year, so 
that Austria will doubtless need every bit of grain 
that Roumania is able to sell. 

If Germany, therefore, were dependent on the im- 
portation of grain, she could receive it only from 
across the ocean. It is, however, this supply which 
England has set out to keep from her. Since not only 
humanity and the precedents on which international 
law is based, but also the Declarations of Paris and of 



The German Food Supply 287 

London — which latter England signed but failed to 
'ratify — explicitly demand free passage for the food 
supply of all civil populations, England's first step 
was to divert the foreign shipments of grain to the 
neutral countries surrounding Germany and to force 
each one of them to forbid the exportation of grain 
during the war. Since these countries, as has been 
seen, are dependent on foreign grain, they had to 
do the bidding of England, who had it in her power 
to prevent any grain from reaching them. Having 
compelled the neutral nations of Europe to lay an 
embargo on the exportation of grain, which could 
harm nobody but Germany, England turned her 
attention to the United States in an endeavor to 
reconcile the American Government to the use of her 
naval power. This she has been unable to do, for 
President Wilson has addressed to England a polite 
protest. Since Sir Edward Grey, however, felt con- 
vinced that there was no punch behind it and that the 
President was determined not to decide on the right or 
wrong of any question connected with the conduct of 
the war, he replied to the American note in a courteous 
way; but, far from altering his course, declared his 
intention ot treating all foodstuffs as contraband of 
war. 

The German scientists were not concerned with the 
question whether England thereby broke the tenets of 
international law. The mere fact that this action de- 
prived Germany of her last possible source of a for- 
eign grain supply sufficed to prove to them that their 
calculations had to be made on the basis of the ab- 
sence of any foreign supply. 

The reason, however, which England advanced for 



288 Germany's Point of View 

her step is unusually interesting. She claimed that 
Germany herself had made food contraband of war 
because her Government had seized the grain supply 
of the country. It is true that the Government had 
taken charge of the grain to administer it in the in- 
terest of all the people. For the time being, there- 
fore, private ownership had been superseded by public 
ownership such as the Socialists advocate everywhere. 
If England's contention is conceded that she has the 
right to starve the civil population of Germany be- 
cause they have introduced government ownership, so 
far as grain is concerned, then no socialistic state, if 
one should ever be established, need expect anything 
but a war of starvation at the hand of nations fighting 
them in the future. 

Germany's home production also will be consider- 
ably diminished. There is, in the first place, the sup- 
ply of fish, which, in 1912-13 amounted to 142,000 
tons from the North Sea, and to 37,000 tons from the 
Baltic. In both seas the danger from mines and hos- 
tile fleets will diminish the annual catches. 

Far greater losses, however, are to be expected in 
farm products, because there is a dearth of skilled 
labor and horses. Many horses have been requisi- 
tioned for the war, and the annual importation of 
about 140,000 horses (largely from Russia) will be 
unavailable. To compensate for this the smaller farms 
will have to take their recourse to oxen, and the 
larger establishments to motor plows. 

The most serious dearth, however, will exist in fer- 
tilizers, and it is their scientific use which has raised 
German agriculture to its present height. Four chem- 
icals are needed : potash, lime, phosphate and nitro- 



The German Food Supply 289 

gen. Germany has potash and lime in abundance, but 
is short in phosphates and nitrogen. In years of peace 
the phosphates used in the German fertihzers consist 
of about two milHon tons of thomasschlacke , which 
is a by-product of the iron industry, and one million 
tons of imported phosphates. During the war the by- 
products of the iron industry will be fewer and the 
importations will cease. Belgium, on the other hand, 
may be able to supply most of the deficit. 

As to nitrogen, Germany used to fill her demand of 
one million tons in about equal parts by importing 
from Chile the so-called Chile saltpetre, and making 
use of a by-product of the home manufacture of coke. 
The German farmers will, therefore, have to reckon 
with a considerable deficit of nitrogen * unless the use 
of coke assumes far greater proportions than hereto- 
fore. Every housewife should realize that she is as- 
sisting the farmers when she burns coke instead of 
coal as formerly. 

There is no doubt that to counteract these various 
deficits somewhat, Germany possesses at present some 
grain, fodder, and fertilizer in large commercial store- 
houses. It is, however, impossible to estimate these 
quantities, which, at best, can only postpone the evil 
day. And when they are used up it would, indeed, 
be an evil day, unless Germany were able to adjust 

* Since the writing of this chapter the German Government 
has announced the perfection of the marvelous process by 
which nitrates are drawn from the air. To encourage the 
investment of private capital in this process a monopoly has 
been established to last until 1922. 

From the military point of view this discovery is most 
important, because Germany had begun to be short of salt- 
peter, which is needed in the manufacture of powder. Dur- 
ing February there was not infrequently a shortage in powder. 
This has now been removed. 



290 Germany's Point of View 

herself to the altered conditions. A proper change in 
her mode of life can, however, keep her from starv- 
ing, if the whole people resolutely face the problems 
which England has propounded for their solution. 
The Germans today are like unto the man who has 
had a large income and been accustomed to a luxuri- 
ous way of living. Suddenly his allowance is greatly 
curtailed and he has to learn that he must either do 
with less or starve. 

Of all the food men eat some is a necessity and the 
rest a luxury. It becomes, therefore, a duty to en- 
quire how much food a man needs, and of what qual- 
ity. Man is like a machine, into whose motor sub- 
stances are introduced and there transformed by vari- 
ous processes into energy. 

The chief difference between a man and a machine 
is that the latter can be stopped for repairs, while the 
tissues, etc., of the former which are used up must 
be rebuilt during the ceaseless process of life. Food, 
therefore, serves two entirely separate purposes : First, 
to rebuild worn-out tissues, and secondly, to provide 
heat and energy. For the former, proteids, salt, and 
water are needed. The last two substances are con- 
tained in sufficiently large quantities in the food of 
all civilized people, so that protein alone need be con- 
sidered. It may, in short, be said to be the one indis- 
pensible substance needed for the rebuilding of tissues. 

The very opposite is the case when protein is par- 
taken of in food which is meant to supply energy to 
the human body, for it may then be replaced by either 
or both of the two other energy-producing substances : 
the fats and the carbohydrates. The respective values 
of these substances for the purposes of creating energy 



The German Food Supply 291 

are measured by units called calories; one calorie be- 
ing the amount of heat needed to increase the warmth 
of I kilogram (a little over two pounds) by one de- 
gree centigrade (=1.8° Fahrenheit). Experiments 
have shown that one gram of fat produces 9.3 calories ; 
one gram of carbohydrates and one gram of protein 
each 4.1 calories. It is further known how many cal- 
ories are needed by people at the various degrees of 
light, medium, or hard labor, and also how much pro- 
tein has to be introduced to keep the tissues of the hu- 
man body replenished. On the strength of these 
known data and very accurate studies and estimates 
(which need not be repeated here in detail) the Ger- 
man scientists have prepared a table which clearly 
shows the problems which the Germans have to solve 
if they will fare better in the huge concentration camp 
which England is trying to make of Germany than 
did the South African women and children in the Boer 
War. 

Cal- Pro- 

ories in tein Mil- 
Food Values For Year. Billions, lion Tons. 

Actually required by the German people. 56.75 1605 

Average used in recent years 90.42 2307 

Available under present economic con- 
ditions 67.68 1554 

This table shows that the available energy-produc- 
ing food, while considerably less than what the Ger- 
mans have been accustomed to eat, is more than what 
they actually need. 

In the proteids, however, which are indispensable 
for the rebuilding of tissues, viz., for keeping the body 
well, a deficit exists not only in comparison with what 



292 Germany's Point of View 

the Germans used to eat, but also with what they ac- 
tually need. 

This is the disquieting conclusion which the German 
scientists have reached and which would mean victory 
for the English, if the latter had to do with any other 
people but the Germans. Fortunately the German 
scientists have shown how this deficit can be met, and 
there is little doubt that the wonderful solidarity of 
the Germans will enable them to put theory into prac- 
tice, and to frustrate the English plan. The Germans, 
however, do not overlook the fact that the inhuman 
attempt has been made to starve to death, not only 
their soldiers, but also their women and children, and 
it has filled them with astonishment that America has 
not raised her voice to frustrate this plan ! 



CHAPTER XXII 

THE GERMAN FOOD SUPPLY 

(Concluded) 

ARON FISHER, the present British first sea lord 
of the admiralty, has expressed his views of how 
the English should fight in these words (quoted from 
The Great Illusion, by Norman Angell, page 350) : 

If you rub it in, both at home and abroad, that you are 
ready for instant war with every unit of your strength 
in the first line, and waiting to be first in, and hit your 
enemy in the belly and kick him when he is down, and 
boil your prisoners in oil (if you take any) and torture 
their women and children, the people will keep clear 
of you. 

And Lord Roberts gave his hearty approval to 
these words of Major Stewart L. Murray (1905) (In 
the introduction he wrote to Murray's book, The Peace 
of the Anglo-Saxons) : 

The worst of all errors in war is a mistaken spirit of 
benevolence. ... It was not in such a spirit of weakness 
that we wrested the command of the sea from the Dutch, 
that we fought the great struggle against Napoleon, or 
seized the Danish fleet at Copenhagen in 1807 to avert 
its possible use against us. 

Lord Kitchener, finally, was the inventor of the 
unique torture called a South African concentration 
camp, in which 30,000 women and children " died " 
during the Boer war. 

293 



294 Germany's Point of View 

Out of the combined efforts of these three types of 
military scientists the British Government has evolved 
the gigantic plan of winning the present war by starv- 
ing her Teutonic allies — men, women, and children. 
The boldness of this attempt is stupendous, but not 
more so than the Teutonic reply, which is divided 
into two parts. 

In the first place the English people are told that 
they are to be held responsible as a whole for the kind 
of warfare their oligarchical government is permitted 
to wage ; and that people who contemplate the murder 
by starvation of whole nations have placed themselves 
outside the pale of humanitarian considerations. The 
fate of Sodom and Gomorrah was not more terrible 
than what the English plan, of starving women and 
children, deserves, and what London and other places 
may suffer, unless this plan can be frustrated. 

The second part of the Teutonic reply is found in 
the attempt to readjust the economic life of Germany, 
that the Germans may subsist even if they are shut 
out from the resources of the outside world, Austria, 
with a smaller population and accessible importations 
of food from Roumania, is less hard hit. 

The preliminary investigations on which to base a 
comprehensive plan were discussed in the previous 
chapter, where a table was given, prepared by a com- 
mittee of German scientists, which showed that the 
greatest deficit in available food existed in the proteids, 
that is the tissue-building substances, while the supply 
of energy-producing foodstuffs, measured by calories, 
appeared to be sufficient. If the Germans, therefore, 
wish to subsist, a comprehensive readjustment of their 
mode of life is obligatory. What, in short, must they 



The German Food Supply 295 

do to thwart the English plan? This is answered in 
the second part of the pamphlet issued by the German 
scientists (and discussed in the last chapter), whose 
advice may be summarized as follows : 

1. All available food, especially that containing protein, 
should be stored and, if need be, taken charge of either 
by the federal government or by the several municipalities. 
This has since been done so far as the grain supply is 
concerned. 

2. The exportation of all such foodstuffs should be for- 
bidden. Early in the war an exception had been made 
in the interest of Switzerland, who is dependent for her 
supply on the importation of grain. When, however, 
England decreed that no grain should reach Germany 
the latter was obliged strictly to enforce her embargo 
on the exportation of grain. When, therefore, the neutral 
nations made the mistake of believing that the rights of 
neutrals are privileges which may be waived, instead of 
rights which it is their duty to enforce, the Swiss were 
the first sufferers of an erroneous policy. 

J. Since ,pigs are men's greatest rivals in eating food 
that is fit to support human life, and since there is a 
great loss, especially in proteids, in the transformation 
of the original food into pork, the number of pigs kept 
should be greatly reduced as soon as possible. Experi- 
ments have proved that almost twice as many people can 
subsist on the food fed to a pig as on the meat of the pig 
itself. The newly slaughtered pigs, however, should not 
be thrown on the market. Instead, every farmer should 
cure, pickle, or otherwise preserve as much pork as pos- 
sible ; and in the towns and cities large storehouses should 
buy up the remainder. In this way a sudden drop in 
prices and the consequent temptation to eat too much 
meat at present would be avoided. 

4. In planning for the harvest of 191 5 every available 
acre of land should be planted and much attention be 
given to the crops of largest yield, such as beets and 
potatoes. The latter are next to grain the most valuable 
food, and should, therefore, be used very sparingly dur- 
ing the war for anything but food. This means that the 
manufacture of starch and its use should be curtailed. 
Men should do without starched shirts and women without 



296 Germany's Point of View 

starched petticoats, and in everything housewives should 
reduce the use of starch to a minimum. 

The manufacture of alcohol, on the other hand, cannot 
be equally curtailed, because it is one of the substitutes 
for gasolene, and may be needed for motor-plows which 
all large estates should introduce. The calculations in 
this connection are especially interesting because the 
committee investigated in detail the relative value of oxen 
and their food and of the food lost to the population by 
the manufacture of alcohol. Since the balance is in favor 
of ploughing with motors, the committee recommends it, 
but urges upon the farmers the strictest economy. 

5. Berries and small fruits, especially apples, should be 
more carefully gathered and be preserved in large quan- 
tities. They are not only an excellent relish, but for most 
people the only acceptable means of introducing sugar into 
the system, and sugar, as will be seen later, must play 
a prominent part in the German food supply during 
the war. 

6. The manufacture of butter should be very much cur- 
tailed, because it contains only the fat of the milk, while 
all the protein is left in the skimmed milk. As previously 
stated (Chapter xxi) one gram of fat creates 9.3 cal- 
ories, and one gram of carbohydrates, 4.1 calories. But- 
ter is fat and sugar carbohydrates. By substituting, there- 
fore, jam for butter in connection with bread and eating 
it liberally the same amount of energy-producing food 
may be obtained, and much more fresh milk be made 
available for human consumption. It is, however, not 
necessary to do away with butter altogether, provided the 
skimmed milk, which used to be fed to the pigs, be made 
available. The committee recommends the building up 
of a special trade in skimmed milk, and urges families 
who do not relish it in its natural state to partake of it 
in the shape of puddings, milk toasts, or soups. 

7. The cooperation of the people is a necessity. Men 
do not live by the food they put into their stomachs but 
by that part of it which they assimilate. The more they 
enjoy it, the greater benefit they derive from it. It would, 
therefore, be very foolish to alter one's mode of life of 
a sudden, and without due regard to the peculiar needs 
of one's physique. There are, however, few people who 
can not gradually shift from their accustomed food of 
meats and other substances rich in fat and protein to 



The German Food Supply 297 

one which contains only as much protein as is needed 
,for the rebuilding of the tissues, and for the rest consists 
of the energy-producing substances, the fats and especially 
the carbohydrates of which Germany has an abundance. 

To facilitate this change and to make the conclusions 
of the committee available throughout the country, 
three popular books have been published : The first is 
called Food in War Time, and is addressed to "offi- 
cials, ministers, physicians, teachers, housewives, and 
all who wish to help." It is sold at four cents, and 
in larger quantities at two cents, American money. 

The second is called A Leaflet on the Food Supply, 
and is distributed free to all societies, clubs, unions, 
and other labor organizations. 

The third is The Little War Cookbook, by Hedwig 
Heyl, which is sold at the nominal price of six cents, 
and in larger quantities at four cents. It contains' 
recipes of inexpensive and nourishing dishes such as 
the former generations used to eat and enjoy, but 
which a more luxurious age had discarded. In addition 
there are many recipes of entirely new dishes which 
will make use of such foodstuffs as in more prosperous 
times are v/asted. 

The value of this little book is incalculable, for if 
the German people learn the lesson which England's 
plan is forcing upon them, that the expensive dishes 
are not only not necessary but often even detrimental, 
they will be that much the better prepared to push 
ahead when peace has come and resume their victo- 
rious progress in the world of commerce, science, and 
industry, which the war had interrupted. 

To the friends of Germany this is the remarkable 
fact that the whole world cannot see that Germany 



298 Germany's Point of View 

was the only one of the nations at war who had 
nothing to gain that a continued peace would not have 
dropped as a ripe fruit into her lap. France hoped 
to regain Alsace-Lorraine, Russia had her eyes on 
Constantinople, Austria wanted to be rid of the 
intrigues of Servia, and England was smarting under 
the commercial rivalry of a nation whose progress was 
about twice her own and who promised to outstrip 
her completely in less than a generation. Germany, 
on the other hand, had nothing to gain. Her industries 
were growing apace and were able to feed each year 
the increase of her population of about one million 
souls, and do it more easily every year.* Her emigra- 
tion had practically ceased. Poverty, in the English 
sense of destitution, was unknown anywhere in Ger- 
many. Her finances were in excellent condition, her 
assets exceeded by far her liabilities. Her army, large 
as it was, was no longer a burden, because there were 
each year many more youths of military age than 
could be used in the army. Her military expenditures 
were less than those of France, England, or Russia, 
and her budget for schools very much larger. What 
had Germany to gain by war? Absolutely nothing. 
What had a jealous rival to gain? Everything. Ger- 
many had learned that efficiency and the open door 
was all she needed to succeed in the world. England 
wished to maintain her supremacy without efficiency 
by means of territorial possessions and a monopoly 
of the sea. It is this "terrible" German efficiency 
that may yet win against the English '' silver bullets " 
and the biggest fleet and most numerous allies the 
world has ever seen. When Asquith heard of the 

* See the author's What Germany Wants, Chapter Five. 



The German Food Supply 299 

new German order that to conserve the grain supply 
every German citizen, however rich or poor, receives 
each week a ticket enabHng him to buy four pounds 
of bread — no more — and that this rule was cheer- 
fully accepted by all, he is quoted as having said that 
it was not the German army he was afraid of, but the 
" spirit of the German bread-ticket." 

This same spirit has shown itself in the readiness 
of the people to comply with the recommendations of 
the Committee of Scientists. One of their suggestions 
was that the farmers should keep less stock, because 
the importation of fodder had ceased, and it had been 
forbidden to feed to the stock grain or potatoes, or 
any other food capable of sustaining human life. Is 
there another country in the world where all the 
farmers would have complied with this order, as they 
have done in Germany? Nobody who has not been 
on German farms, small or large, and has not seen the 
tender love of the men for their stock, can know how 
deep their sorrow was, when, in the interest of all, 
they had to deplete their herds. Years of hard labor 
may have made it possible for many a farmer to fill 
his barns with choice cattle at last. Each cow was 
known by name and many were the recipients of actual 
love. Now the family had to be broken up. — But 
what's the use ? People who do not know the Germans 
will not understand what the farmers feel, and people 
who do know them need no description. — One thing, 
however, is sure, every day there grows in every Ger- 
man heart a deeper resentment against the inhuman 
plan of the English to starve to death a whole nation. 
Will the neutral nations never speak up ? Does it mean 
nothing to them, when they see the German farmer 



300 Germany's Point of View 

read this sentence from the official report: ''Unless 
another way is found, we must, to conserve our food 
supply, do away with three million cows." 

Three million cows is a little more than one quarter 
of all the cows owned in Germany at the last census. 
Add to these nine million pigs, which must be killed, 
and you can get an idea of the change which will have 
to take place on the German farms. 

But even this enormous slaughter of animals and 
the consequent saving of food would not suffice unless 
a great proportion of the food which under ordinary 
conditions is wasted or lost can be preserved. This 
loss is very great with the invaluable potato, and to 
avoid it communal drying-plants are everywhere intro- 
duced. It is no longer a question of a remunerative 
investment of money, but of the preservation of food; 
and no means promise better results than these drying- 
plants. 

Other suggestions have to do with the preservation 
of fatty substances. Housewives are shown by actual 
figures how large a percentage of fat they have per- 
mitted to run into the sewers, and there is probably 
not a household in Germany today where this tremen- 
dous waste is not at least somewhat stopped. 

Tables also have been prepared to show the gradual 
increase of the per capita consumption of meat in 
Germany and to prove how unnecessary it is. It will 
be remembered that a kilogram is slightly more than 
two English pounds. The consumption was : 

Year — k. g. Year — k. g. 

1816 13.6 1883 29.3 

1840 21.6 1892 32.5 

1861 23.2 1900 43.4 

1873 29.5 1907 46.2 



The German Food Supply 301 

This shows that the meat consumption today is 
twice as great as it was fifty years ago. Nobody, 
however, will deny that the people then were as 
healthy as they are now. Less meat and more vege- 
tables, less fat and more carbohydrates is the reply 
to England's inhuman designs, and with this in view 
careful suggestions have been made for the planning 
of the most serviceable vegetables. 

Another article of food which has not been suffi- 
ciently appreciated is cheese, for cheese is rich in 
proteids, and often also in fats. The so-called 
mager-kdse, moreover, is the best means of preserving 
skimmed milk. 

Of some of the other suggestions only a few need 
be mentioned. The Germans eat annually about four- 
teen million tons of potatoes, but of this quantity fully 
fifteen per cent are lost because potatoes are generally 
peeled before they are cooked. This loss can be 
entirely avoided by peeling the potatoes after they 
are cooked. This, however, often leaves a slight 
flavor of the skin which is avoided if the potatoes, after 
being peeled, are boiled for three more minutes in 
salted water. 

Sugar has been less used in Germany than in either 
England or America, where its consumption has been 
about twice as large as that of Germany. The German 
export of sugar has averaged about one million tons 
annually. This should now be consumed at home, and 
to induce the people to consume more of it, the com- 
mittee has given an exhaustive discussion to its nutri- 
tive qualities. This sentence is especially interesting: 

Detailed investigations have proved that the feeling of 
tired exhaustion is successfully combated if one partakes 
of from twelve to fifteen grams of sugar every half hour. 



.302 Germany's Point of View 

It is impossible to read this report of the voluntary 
committee of German scientists without being con- 
vinced that they are right. Germany will not starve. 
She will cheat the devil. She will come out on top, 
not because she has an abundance, but because hers is 
a country of organized liberty. Does anybody think 
that an autocratic state like Russia could enforce such 
rules as are outlined above, or that an oligarchical 
state like England could put them into execution with 
any prospects of success, or that a democracy oi the 
French calibre could do anything with them? Every 
one of these states placed in the position in which 
Germany finds herself would unquestionably succumb. 
The reason why Germany will rise victorious is appar- 
ent to all who know her, and was summed up less 
than two years ago by Charles W. Eliot, ex-President 
of Harvard University, when he said at a banquet 
given by the German Publication Society in New York, 
that two doctrines have made Germany great: 

The first, the doctrine of universal education, and the sec- 
ond, the great doctrine of civil liberty, liberty in industries, 
in society, in government, liberty with order under law. 



CHAPTER XXIII 

NAVAL WAR AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 

IN the discussion of international complications aris- 
ing from the conduct of the war on sea, two 
entirely different and incompatible principles of law 
are constantly invoked : the written law, i. e., the Dec- 
larations of Paris and London and the Hague Conven- 
tions, and the unwritten so-called Law of Nations. 

This conflict between the written and the unwritten 
(z. e., the common) law is of far-reaching importance. 
Germany has gone further than any other country in 
accepting the principle of the written law as alone 
binding in her courts. It implies the firm belief that 
the people of Germany are capable of making their 
own laws, and that the administration of justice in 
any one generation is best served when it follows the 
conscience of the people then living, expressed in the 
laws passed by their own legislatures. The Germans 
refuse to worship at the shrine of abstract justice and 
claim that altered conditions demand new definitions 
of right and wrong. They do not understand the 
English view that a principle of justice laid down, say, 
in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and accepted then 
possibly because it had been followed for several hun- 
dred years, must be a correct principle today. 

England's legal faith has turned in the very opposite 
direction from that of Germany. The very attempt 
to reduce justice to definite laws seems absurd to the 

303 



304 Germany's Point of View 

English jurist, who looks with considerable distrust 
on every attempt of the people to make their own laws. 
What does the man in the street, or the laborer, or the 
clerk, or the shopkeeper, or anybody else but the jurist 
know about justice? And what will become of the 
world if the truth of the principle is denied that justice 
is the same always? If after generations of honest 
striving a principle of justice has been established it 
should be maintained for all times. Such a view takes 
no account of the changes of time, and is, the Ger- 
mans believe, the cause of the backward conditions of 
the English masses. 

England, it is true, has some written or statutory 
laws, but back of them there always looms as the 
beacon light of justice the unwritten or common law, 
as it has been interpreted through centuries by her 
best legal talent. 

The legal procedure of America is based on that of 
England, but every year more independent minds are 
chafing under the restraint of what may be exquisitely 
just in the abstract, but works great injustice in the 
concrete. The American people, however, have rarely 
been patient enough to enact well-rounded codes of 
law and the not infrequent injustice of enacted laws 
has been a powerful weapon in the hands of the reac- 
tionary worshippers of the common law, who are sure 
that the American people cannot be trusted with the 
making of their own laws. The feeling, nevertheless, 
has latterly been growing in America that it is ridicu- 
lous to have our ancestors of five, ten, or more genera- 
tions ago prescribe for us what is just, when we have 
long discarded their advice in every other realm, 
especially in those of religion and of art. 



Naval War and International Law 305 

Soon after the beginning of the present war England 
practically said : " There is an unwritten law of 
nations concerning the conduct of the war on the sea, 
and there are some written laws, the Declaration of 
Paris (1856), The Hague Convention (1907), and 
the Declaration of London (1909). Since not one of 
these three laws has been finally accepted by all the 
belligerents, none of them is binding on us. We shall, 
therefore, revert to the unwritten law of nations, 
which, after all, is the only really just guide in the 
conduct of war. It will be administered by our own 
courts in the same impartial spirit which has always 
characterized them." 

In saying this England was true to herself. Many 
of her people had been chafing under the restraints of 
the Declarations of Paris and London and The Hague 
Conventions, believing them to be unwarranted in- 
fringements of their sovereign rights. And it is per- 
fectly conceivable that the English jurists felt gratified 
when their Government renounced these written laws, 
and declared that hereafter it would be bound only by 
the sacred laws of hoary antiquity, under which Eng- 
land had established her empire. 

But as conditions have changed in internal affairs 
and what once was considered just, works harm for 
many people today, so also in international relations, 
the principles which England had inherited, and to 
which all other States used to submit, have grown irk- 
some for the neutral States, who are no longer willing 
to acknowledge that England is supreme in anything 
but name. 

However natural, therefore, England's course may 
have been from her own point of view, it could not fail 



3o6 Germany's Point of View 

to arouse resentment in two quarters. Her enemies 
said that England tore up the only laws there were 
when she renounced the Declaration of London and all 
preceding agreements, and since the Teutonic people 
take no stock in England's worship of an unwritten 
law, they naturally felt that England had reverted to 
a state of absolute lawlessness. 

Since it is an accepted principle of justice that no- 
body is bound to observe any but the dictates of his 
heart when he is matched against an opponent who 
openly refuses obedience to existing laws, Germany 
has treated England as an outlaw. If England had 
not renounced the written law of nations, Germany's 
submarine war against her would be of very doubtful 
legality. Since Germany, however, does not recognize 
England's so-called unwritten law as law at all, and 
considers England's attempt to starve her and to 
throttle her commerce as monstrous, she feels justified 
in trying to do the same thing to England with the 
only means at her disposal — with her submarines. 

The question naturally arises in regard to this sub- 
marine war, how about the right of the neutral coun- 
tries to trade with England ? To this Germany would 
probably reply something like this : A few months 
ago it was a question of the right of the neutral coun- 
tries to trade with Germany. Then the neutral 
countries, to the great disadvantage of Germany, did 
not insist upon their rights, treating them as privileges 
which could be waived in consideration of the "great 
necessities" of England. There is, therefore, no rea- 
son why these countries should not now be willing to 
waive them in the interest of Germany, if they are 
really neutral. 



Naval War and International Law 307 

Germany has at all times been willing to abide by 
the established rules, and nothing would have suited 
her better than a league of all the neutral States, 
resolved on enforcing the rules. No such league was 
formed, while the greatest of the neutral States hum- 
bly submitted to England's attempt to undo at one 
blow what the best minds of America had worked for 
over one hundred years to build up. 

In a recent article in the Boston Herald, ex-Presi- 
dent Eliot summed up the American aims in these 
words : 

Free seas, free interocean canals and straits, the "open 
door," and free competition in international trade are 
needed securities for peace. 

He might have added " and a neutralized merchant 
marine," for this has been America's great contention 
for over one hundred years. On land we have long 
passed the age of piracy, and private property is safe, 
unless requisitioned for use of the army, when it is 
paid for in full. On sea, however, all attempts at neu- 
tralizing the commerce of the world have met with 
England's unrelenting opposition. It is true that she 
joined in the Declarations of Paris and London and 
The Hague Convention, but never so thoroughly that 
she had to feel bound by them. 

The whole nineteenth century and the first decade 
of the twentieth have been one continual struggle to 
induce England to renounce her " right " to a kind of 
warfare which, while it had made her great, was con- 
trary to the conscience of all the civilized peoples of 
the world save her own. 

The struggle began in 1801 when Russia concluded a 



3o8 Germany's Point of View 

convention with Denmark and Sweden-Norway with 
the intention of estabhshing a new code of maritime 
law. It was their view that neutral shipping in the 
future should be inviolate in war. England did not 
like this and in his speech from the throne in Febru- 
ary, 1801, the king of England referred to this new 
code as : 

inconsistent with the rights and hostile to the interests 
of this country. ... I have taken the earliest measures 
to repel the aggression of this hostile confederacy and 
to support those principles which are essential to the 
maintenance of our naval strength, and which are 
grounded on the system of public laws, so long estab- 
lished and recognized in Europe. (Speeches of William 
Pitt in the House of Commons, page 221.) 

These words reflect the British unwillingness to 
adapt their laws to the growing sense of justice and 
humaneness of mankind. Pitt himself, speaking on 
February 2, 1801, amplified the same idea, when he 
claimed that England should not renounce her " right " 
to make war on the commerce of the world, neutral or 
not neutral. 

"If it should be proved," he said, "' that our greatness, 
nay our very existence as a nation, and everything that 
has raised us to the exalted situation which we hold, 
depends upon our possessing and exercising this [right] 
— if I say, all this should be proved in the most satisfac- 
tory manner, still the honorable gentleman [Mr. Grey] 
is prepared seriously to declare in this House, that such 
are the circumstances in which we stand, that we ought 
publicly and explicitly to state to the world that we are 
unequal to the contest, and that we must quietly give 
up forever an unquestionable right, and one upon which 
not only our character, but our very existence as a mari- 
time Power depends." (Ibid p. 224.) 

Today another Grey is taking part in English poli- 



Naval War and International Law 309 

tics, and instead of opposing Pitt's doctrine, is its 
greatest champion. He, too, considers it to be an 
''unquestionable right" of England to make war on 
the commerce of the world, because she is at war with 
Germany. He would probably give his hearty approval 
also to the following words of Pitt : 

I must observe that the honorable gentleman has fallen 
into the same error which constitutes the great fallacy 
in the reasoning of the advocates [of the new code of 
maritime law], namely, that every exception from the gen- 
eral law by a particular treaty proves the law to be as 
it is stated in that treaty, whereas the very circumstance 
of making an exception of treaty proves what the general 
law of nations would be if no such treaty were made to 
modify or alter it." (Ibid, p. 227.) 

Such reasoning carried ad absurdum means that the 
very fact that we pass a law forbidding unfair com- 
petition means that the general unwritten law of peo- 
ple allows unfair competition ; and the signing of any 
convention forbidding the war on neutral shipping 
implies that the unwritten law of nations decrees such 
a war. To reason like this is monstrous, for it sur- 
rounds with a halo every abuse that time has per- 
mitted to grow up. It is, however, the reasoning of 
all who thrive by special privilege and hate progress. 
It is, and always has been, the reasoning of political 
England ; and it is one of the marvels of the age that 
so many Americans do not see this. Those who in 
America have fastened their grip on the masses whom 
they exploit will naturally sympathize with Pitt's doc- 
trine, but that men like ex-President Eliot do not see 
that England is fighting to maintain such outworn 
doctrines, while Germany is giving her heart's blood to 
break them down, is incomprehensible. 



3IO Germany's Point of View 

While Pitt placed his objection to the new code 
exclusively on the high moral ground of adherence to 
the sanctity of the unwritten law of nations, which 
he did not wish to see altered by written conventions, 
Charles Fox was perfectly willing to make his appeal 
also to " common sense," that is, to the British 
pocketbook. He said: 

If the commerce of a Power at war could be legally car- 
ried on by a neutral, the benefit of maritime preponder- 
ance would be wholly lost — a thing as much at variance 
with common sense as it would be repugnant to reason 
{Speeches of the Rt. Hon. Charles James Fox in the House 
of Commons, vol. vi., p. 428). 

This whole idea struck terror to the heart of the 
English, for if their " right " to make war on neutral 
commerce were taken away from them, they might be 
obliged to join with the other nations in an efficiency 
test of competition. What would then become of their 
divine right of superiority? Would such a code not 
level all distinctions? Was it not, therefore, a sacred 
duty to fight against it ? For, as Pitt said : 

Shall we voluntarily give up our maritime consequence, 
and expose ourselves to scorn, to derision, and contempt? 
. . . Will you silently stand by and, acknowledging these 
monstrous and unheard-of principles of neutrality, ensure 
your enemy against the effects of your hostility? Fctur 
nations have leagued to produce a new code of maritime 
laws, in defiance of the established law of nations. . . . 
What is this but the same Jacobin principle which pro- 
claimed the Rights of Man. ... It is in violation of the 
rights of England, and imperiously calls upon Englishrnen 
to resist it even to the last shilling. (Speeches of William 
Pitt in the House of Commvns, p. 264.) 

Has ever man more truly expressed what has ailed 



Naval War and International Law 311 

England for more than one hundred years? The 
Rights of Man are in violation of the Rights of Eng- 
land! The great lesson of the French Revolution and 
the American Declaration of Independence has' passed 
England by. This is why Ireland hates her, and why 
the spectre of dire poverty stalks through the land at 
the same time that an idle aristocracy and a greedy 
oligarchy are sucking the country dry. The Rights of 
Man in violation of the rights of England ! This was 
said in 1801, and it is as true today as then. England 
does not know equality and equal opportunity at 
home, and does not want them among the nations. 
Her claim to " supremacy " is not an idle boast. She 
believes she is first, and whoever approaches that 
exalted position must be quelched. She acted on this 
principle with Spain, France, Holland, and the United 
States, all of whom she deprived of their merchant 
marines. Today she is trying to do the same thing 
with Germany. But she has tried it once too often. 
This time she will have to acknowledge the Rights of 
Man, for after the war there will be no aristocracy of 
nations. They will all be on an equal footing. 

In 1801, however, Pitt's "last shilling," the proto- 
type of Lloyd George's " silver bullet," averted the 
danger and the northern powers withdrew their mari- 
time code. A new convention was signed with Russia 
which met with the high approval of Lord Nelson, who 
was glad that it 

had put an end to the principle . . . that free ships made 
free goods — a proposition so monstrous in itself, so con- 
trary to the law of nations, and so injurious to the mari- 
time rights of this country that if it had been persisted 
in, England should not have made peace {Parliamentary 
History, vol. 36, p. 262). 



312 Germany's Point of View 

After this the EngHsh, who had been badly scared, 
had some years of undisturbed enjoyment of their 
" rights " until one of their ministers was so rash as 
to join with other nations in the Declaration of Paris 
(1856). This declaration contains four points: 

1. Privateering is and remains abolished. 

2. The neutral flag covers enemy's merchandise, with 
the exception of contraband of war. 

5. Neutral merchandise, with the exception of contra- 
band of war, is not capturable under the enemy's flag. 

^. Blockades, in order to be obligatory, must be effec- 
tive; that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient to 
really prevent access to the coast of the enemy. 

It was a first step in advance, albeit such a halting 
one that the United States refused to ratify it, claim- 
ing that privateering and the capture of the enemy's, 
as well as neutral's, private property on the sea, should 
be abolished at the same time. The English, however, 
were greatly exercised, and the Earl of Derby actually 
said on May 22, 1856: 

I look upon this act ... as cutting off the right arm, as 
it were, of the country. I look upon it as depriving her 
of those natural advantages which her great maritime 
power has given her in war, and of the exercise of that 
superiority and those belligerent rights without which she 
is nothing. {Parliamentary Debates, vol. 142, p. 535.) 

Pitt had said that the Rights of Man were in viola- 
tion of the rights of England, and Lord Derby said 
that without these rights England was nothing ! From 
the testimony of England's own statesmen, therefore, 
it appears that England is "lost" as soon as she is 
forced to set her house in order according to the prin- 
ciples accepted by all other civilized nations — princi- 
ples which are based on the Rights of Man. But Eng- 



Naval War and International Law 313 

land does not want to set her house to rights, and, 
leaving conditions at home as they are, England is 
"lost," if the war lasts long, unless she can find a 
means of breaking every restriction on her "rights." 
This was clearly felt and succintly stated by J. Stuart 
Mill, who, on August 5, 1867, {Parliamentary Debates, 
volume 189, p. 877), spoke in reference to the accept- 
ance of the Declaration of Paris by Great Britain as 
follows : 

We have put away the natural weapon of a maritime 
nation. . . . Sir, I venture to call the renunciation of 
the right of seizing enemy's property at sea a national 
blunder. Happily it is not an irretrievable one. The 
Declaration of 1856 is not a treaty. It has never been 
ratified. ... It is not a permanent engagement between 
nations; it is but a joint declaration of present inten- 
tion. . . . Suppose that we were at war with any Power 
which is a party to the Declaration of Paris. If our 
cargoes would be safe in neutral bottoms, but unsafe in 
our own, then if the war was of any duration our whole 
export and import trade would pass to the neutral flags, 
most of our merchant shipping would be thrown out of 
employment, and would be sold to neutral countries, as 
happened to so much of the shipping of the United States 
from the pressure of two or three, it mJght almost be; 
said of a single cruiser. ... A protracted war on such 
terms must end in national disaster. 

Does this mean anything if not that it was all right 
for England to capture the American trade, but that 
it would be all wrong if America were permitted to 
return the compliment? Every thoughtful English- 
man in politics, moreover, realized, after the accept- 
ance of the Declaration of London of 1909 that Eng- 
land's greatness was based on her " right " to wage war 
according to principles which the rest of the civilized 
world had grown to deem barbarous. The Declaration 



314 Germany's Point of Viezv 

of Paris (1856) for the first time established the prin- 
ciple that there are other rights besides those of Eng- 
land — the rights of neutrals and the rights of hu- 
manity. England — not the intellectual and religious 
England, but the political England — fought tooth and 
nail against the Declaration of Paris until she found a 
way which made it possible for her to avoid its obli- 
gations. Then there followed The Hague Convention 
of 1907 and the Declaration of London of 1909, which 
met with violent public opposition in England. Today 
she has torn all these agreements into threads, and, to 
avoid " national disaster," has fallen back on her own 
unwritten Law of Nations. This " law " is a survival 
of the past, when humanity had no rights, when neu- 
trals had no rights, and when the " rights "of England 
were supreme. 

What will the world do about it ? What will Amer- 
ica do about it? Will not her acquiescence be a be- 
trayal of every principle to which the United States 
confessed allegiance at The Hague in 1907, and in 
London in 1909? 

If America decides not to acquiesce, has she any 
means, short of war, to enforce her demands? She 
certainly has! 



CHAPTER XXIV 

THE DECLARATION OF LONDON 

WHEN William Pitt said in Parliament on March 
25, 1801, that England would never surrender 
her naval " rights " in favor of a new maritime law, 
which recognized as paramount the rights of neutrals 
and of humanity, he explained his opposition in these 
memorable words: 

A new code of maritime laws. . . . What is this but the 
same Jacobin principle which proclaimed the Rights of 
Man ! . , . It is in violation of the rights of England. 

This has been the keynote of the opposition which 
political England has been waging for more than a 
century against all attempts of the civilized world to 
establish by codified law the rights of humanity. It 
has been the battle-cry of all who have fought against 
the ratification of the Hague Convention and the 
Declaration, of London, and is given a prominent place 
in the writings of the protagonist of the '' rights " of 
England, T. Gibson Bowles, M. P., whose Sea Law 
and Sea Power (London, John Murray, 19 10), beat 
the Naval Prize Bill, without which ratification of 
the essential conventions of the second Hague 
Conference and the Declaration of London became 
impossible. 

Since Mr. Bowles was the leader of the British 
movement, whose vote against the proposal prevailed 
in Parliament, he may be quoted with the assurance 

315 



3i6 Germany's Point of View 

that in so doing one does not misrepresent England's 
official attitude; for he spoke with the authority of a 
man who had long been in Parliament (from 1892 to 
1906, and again in 1910), and who, when the test came, 
could enforce his views by a majority vote of his 
colleagues. 

To him, England is the world, and England alone 
has the right to say what the law shall be. The 
assumption of the rest of mankind to take part in the 
deliberations of The Hague conferences fills him with 
contemptuous wrath, for in his eyes the delegates 
there represented nothing but a "cosmopolitan mob" 
(page 143). The results of The Hague conference 
and the Declaration of London he summed up in this 
crisp sentence: 

Great Britain had been hustled out of her prize jurisdic- 
tion by the forty-five of The Hague conference; she was 
now to be hustled into a new law of nations by the ten 
of the London conference — as was in the end duly done, 
(p. 144.) 

When will the world, and America in particular, 
learn that all the fair words of the literary England 
count for nothing, so long as the political England, that 
is the oligarchy of cold-blooded money kings, who 
are in league with a useless aristocracy, controls the 
action of the empire. England was "hustled out" of 
her naval " rights " at the second Hague Conference in 
favor of the rights of humanity and neutral freedom, 
although "the merest attention will show, as all his- 
tory proves, that . . . belligerent rights and neutral 
freedom are opposed to and mutually destructive each 
of the other" (p. 172). Since this is the case, the 
only thing for England to do is to refuse to ratify The 



The Declaration of London 317 

Hague Convention and the Declaration of London, and 
having done this noble deed, go even farther back, and 
" by denouncing the Declaration of Paris, resume those 
powers already waived" (p. 224). 

This is exactly what England has done. As has 
been pointed out, she has declared what in practice 
amounts to this, that she considers herself no longer 
bound by any but her own unwritten law, the blessed 
law that through 800 years, as Bowles says, has secured 
for her and guaranteed to her the supremacy of thq 
world. At last she feels the sceptre slipping from 
her hands, and unable to maintain her position as the 
sole mistress of the sea, she is calling the world to 
her side. She does not say: ''Help me to maintain 
my supremacy." On the contrary, she today denies 
ever having had such aspirations, and claims that she 
is fighting for the freedom of mankind, because " Ger- 
many," she says, " is reaching for the mastery of 
the universe." And in support of her claim she refers 
America to Treitschke, Bernhardi, and Nietzsche! 
Even Viscount Bryce blows in the same trumpet, and 
though President Hadley of Yale has punctured the 
Treitschke bubble, and France herself has shown up 
the Nietzsche nonsense by sending M. Henri Lichten- 
burger as exchange professor to Harvard to teach 
American youths the nobilty of the philosophy which 
Germany had rejected, and although it is an established 
fact that Bernhardi was practically unknown in Ger- 
many before the war, England goes on trying to fool 
America and to frighten her with a bogey. Is it really 
conceivable that Germany should have aspired after 
world dominion, and the world not have known it be- 
fore this ! 



3i8 Germany's Point of View 

Germany does not want the dominion of the world, 
and anybody who takes the least pains in studying the 
real Germany of the last two decades will have no 
difficulty in discovering this for himself. But why 
then, it will be asked, did she plan for war? And 
that she so planned we have on the excellent authority 
of Sir Edward Grey himself, whom the American 
press quoted as recently as March 22 as saying: 

We now know that Germany had prepared for war, and 
only those who have planned for war can prepare for it. 

If Sir Edward wants to know why Germany pre- 
pared for war let him read the concluding page of 
T. Gibson Bowles's book mentioned above and pub- 
lished in 19 10. The page is headed : " Keep the Sword 
Sharp," and reads in part as follows : 

And now one last word. Despite all fair words spoken, 
the deeds done during the last fifty years throughout the 
world show that we are no nearer universal peace but 
farther from it; that if peace is cried more loudly, war 
is more constantly and secretly prepared, and more sud- 
denly sprung; that ambition stalks the earth no less pre- 
datory than ever, but only smoother spoken, and that 
force is but more completely cloaked in fraud. Any day 
we, too, with little or no warning, may have to fight for 
our own. In that day what alone will avail us will be 
our sea power and our maritime rights; what alone will 
check our enemy, their full exercise. As they sufficed 
before, even against all Europe, so they would still suf- 
fice [that is, if the Hague Convention and the Declara- 
tion of London were not ratified, and the Declaration of 
Paris be abrogated]. 

In that day it will avail us nothing that we have the 
most powerful fleets, if by our' own folly we have in 
advance suffered them to be protocolized and declared 
out of their effectual powers [that is, by acknowledging 
that not only England but also humanity and neutrals 
have rights]. 



The Declaration of London 319 

Is that day so remote that we need now and henceforth 
think only of our neutral profits in peace, and not at all 
of our risks, rights, and powers in war? 

If so, why all these dreadnoughts? Why this present 
concentration in the North Sea of British fleets recalled 
from all quarters of the globe? 

Is that day so far off? Is it not rather quite mani- 
festly believed by those who know most and are most 
responsible, to be near at hand? 

If it be, then to part with any, even the least portion 
of that sea power whereon alone we can rely for our 
defence, would be to prepare our own ruin. 

Not now. Not now. Not yet. 

This is no time for putting off any of our harness — 
rather for girding it on. 

With these words T. Gibson Bowles won his fight. 
The Government was beaten, and Parliament rejected 
the naval prize bill, and thereby made impossible the 
ratification of the most important Hague convention 
and the Declaration of London. 

" For only those who had planned for war can 
prepare for it," says Sir Edward Grey. Was this 
eloquent appeal of a member of Parliament, was the 
acceptance of his views by a majority of Parliament, 
was the ready acquiescence of the Government, not 
in substance a call to arms, a preparation for war? 
And if it was, who planned the war? Should Ger- 
many see England tear up the recent agreements of 
the nations as to what is right and wrong among men, 
that in the war, which she was planning, she could 
make wrong "right" again, as she proudly claimed 
she had done for eight hundred years until a " cosmo- 
politan mob " had bidden her to heed at least some of 
the "Rights of Man" — should Germany see all this, 
and hear the leader of the parliamentary majority 
warn his country to "keep the sword sharp," and 



320 Germany's Point of View 

should she herself listen to the siren voice of a 
"smooth-spoken" EngHsh Secretary of Foreign Af- 
fairs, and let her own sword grow dull ? 

Let anybody read Mr. Bowles's book and, knowing 
the anti-German feeling fanned daily by the London 
Times and other conscienceless sheets, ask himself 
whether the whole book is not directed against Ger- 
many, And if it is, what was the whole purpose of the 
agitation against the Declaration of London except 
the following plea, which is the substance of everything 
Mr. Bowles wrote? 

We English have grown strong by the unscrupulous 
use of our sea-power. Our Government thought we 
were so strong now that the unfair means of former 
centuries could be discarded, and that we could make 
allowances also to the rights of humanity and the free- 
dom of neutrals, without forfeiting our exclusive posi- 
tion in the world. We, therefore, signed the Declara- 
tion of Paris in 1856, and our ministers even accepted 
an International Prize Court at the Hague, and estab- 
lished a code of laws for the guidance of this court. 
They believed that we were strong enough to permit 
ourselves this luxury. They were mistaken. A nation 
has arisen recently so strong that we must crush her 
before it is too late. Every time we take two steps in 
advance she takes three* in commercial development. 
We dare not set our house in order as she has done, 
for that would dethrone our divinely established oli- 
garchy ; nor do we wish to work as hard as she, but if 
we do not, we are hopelessly outclassed by her effi- 
ciency. In this dilemma there is only one way out. 

* See the author's What Germany Wants, Chapter Five. 



The Declaration of London 321 

Already she is so strong and the man who steers her 
course is so just and peace loving, that Russia and 
France do not dare to attack her alone. England, there- 
fore, will have to join in the fight.* But we know very 
well that in such a fight we are lost, if we wage it ac- 
cording to the notions of the civilized world, which is 
strangely affected by the principle of the Rights of 
Man. Therefore, proud sons of Albion, rise in your 
might, denounce every shred of concession you have 
made to the *' cosmopolitan mob" at the Hague, take 
the law in your own hands, assert your privileges, and 
since you will never be able to down Germany by fair 
means, revert to the wrongs of centuries ago which 
under the hallowed title of the Common Law of Na- 
tions you have proclaimed as the English right. 

This was Mr. Bowles' plea in Parliament, this the 
rallying cry of his enthusiastic friends, and this the 
explanation of the recent action of the British Govern- 
ment. 

In justice to Mr. Bowles, however, it must be said 
that, judging by his books, he would be the first to 
condemn the underhanded way in which the British 
government presumes to declare a blockade without 
calling it a blockade in the accepted sense of the word, 
or to renounce the Declaration of London without 
acknowledging that it has done so, or to disregard the 
Declaration of Paris when England is in honor bound 
by it. On this latter point Mr. Bowles is m.ost ex- 
plicit. Condemning it in unmeasured terms as an 
infringement of the " rights " of England, and a perver- 

* See G. K. Chesterton quoted in The Fatherland, April 14, 
1915, P- 9. 



322 Germany's Point of View 

sion of the (English) Law of Nations, he calls for its 
abrogation. 

In order to effect this it is necessary that the Declaration 
should be openly denounced and repudiated; for until it 
is repudiated it must be held as binding. Its falsity and 
the want of previous authority and subsequent sanction 
are not sufficient to be simply disregarded in time of war ; 
they are more than sufficient to invite its denunciation and 
repudiation in time of peace. (T. G. Bowles : The Decla- 
ration of Paris, p. 210). 

Mr. Bowles may be savage, but he is honest He 
calls a spade a spade ; and after wading through reams 
of explanations by international lawyers, it is refresh- 
ing to read his simple and clear statement of those 
three documents, the Declarations of Paris and Lon- 
don, and the Hague Convention. Briefly it is, this: 

The Declaration of Paris was the first curb on the 
arbitrary exercise of the sea-power of England. 

Then came the Hague Convention of 1907, which 
established an International Prize Court as a Court 
of Appeals from the decisions of the courts of the 
several countries. There were, however, no codified 
laws to guide the judges of this proposed international 
court, and to remedy this defect the British Govern- 
ment invited the ten largest nations to a conference 
in London. There the so-called Declaration of London 
of 1909 was agreed upon as expressing the highest 
principles of right and wrong in maritime war on 
which the nations could agree. 

Sir Edward Grey claimed in Parliament that by the 
signature of His Majesty's Government, plenipoten- 
tiary Great Britain had become committed to the decla- 
ration, and that the authority of Parliament was not 
needed. The Hague convention, however, could not be 



The Declaration of London 323 

ratified until Parliament had changed the law of the 
land, because it established an appeal from the courts 
of England which the existing law did not acknowl- 
edge. The Naval Prize Bill intended to do this. When 
Bowles and his followers beat this bill their claim 
was this : The Declaration of London made laws for 
the International Prize Court, which was provided for 
by the Hague Conference. When the establishment of 
this court was made impossible by Parliament, so far 
as England is concerned, the laws of the Declaration 
of London also fell by the wayside. They have no 
binding force on the courts of England; and as a 
matter of fact the English judges are not paying any 
attention to them today. 

Why, then, one may ask, keep alive the fiction of 
the Declaration of London? Probably for two reasons. 
First, few people have the leisure or the training which 
enable them to go through a mass of legal technicalities 
to rock bottom. They will, therefore, be easily misled 
by such clever lawyers as, for instance, Mr. Frederic 
R. Coudert, to believe that there are excuses for every 
glaring infringement of the Declaration. If England 
succeeds in carrying this war through without being 
obliged openly to renounce the Declaration, she may in 
a future war, in which she happens to be a neutral, 
derive all the benefits which the Declaration guarantees 
to neutrals. By disregarding it when she is at war, 
and insisting on its observance when she is a neutral, 
she will play the fine old game " heads I win, tails you 
lose." She has, moreover, the conviction that the only 
nation which could call her blufif is America, and that 
America will not do it. As Viscount Bryce says (the 
Boston Herald, March 22, 1915), the American press 



324 Germany's Point of View 

is pro-British, there is nothing to fear. This is at the 
present moment the unfortunate, nay even the dis- 
astrous, state of affairs that a number of people are 
so strongly swayed by their sympathies with Eng- 
land, France, Russia, Servia, or Belgium, that they 
are not even willing to investigate on their own account 
the enormous harm which England and America are 
doing to the advance of honest international relations 
by the former's reversion, to her own antiquated law 
of nations, and by the latter's acquiescence injt. 

The second reason why Sir Edward Grey does not 
openly renounce the Declaration of London, although 
he has actually done so, and the British Courts have 
indeed openly renounced it, is this: The Declaration 
of London, Mr. Bowles believed, legalized the traffic 
in arms. Renounce the Declaration of London, and 
what do we find? Mr. Bowles has covered this point 
at length on pages 147, et seq. of his book. Sea Law 
and Sea Power. This is what he says : 

Great Britain has always denied that neutrals have or 
could have any right to supply, either to one or to both 
belligerents, that assistance in the war which is provided 
by furnishing either with such means of resistance or 
offence as are called " contraband." She has always de- 
clared the law of nations to be — as, in fact, it is — that 
for a friend of both belligerents to place in the hands 
of one of them arms against the other is an abandonment 
of the neutrality which forbids such an assistance to 
either. 

This law, Mr. Bowles claims, is altered by the 
Declaration of London, and, taking Sir Edward Grey 
to task for it, he says : 

It would be interesting to know whether Sir Edward 
would apply to individuals the same principle as to nations 



The Declaration of London 325 

— whether, seeing two men locked in a deadly struggle, 
he would sympathetically consider and actively support a 
friend of both who should furtively hand a knife to one 
of them. 

Thus Mr. Bowles! And what is America doing 
about it ? There is no doubt that England is no longer 
governed by the Declaration of London, and that this 
is resulting in enormous damage to America. Unless 
relief comes soon all the American textile mills and 
leather factories, for instance, will have to curtail their 
work and eventually stop. As a huge bribe England 
is placing in this country orders for hundreds of mil- 
lions of dollars worth of ammunition for herself and 
her allies. 

Why then does America^ if she is unwilling to stop 
the nefarious traffic in arms for moral reasons, not 
face the question from a pui;-ely legal standpoint and 
say to England : 

1. If you are governed and wish us to be governed by 
the principles of the Declaration of London, which per- 
mits the exportation of arms and ammunition, then live 
up to its stipulations, and open the sea to neutral traffic. 
We do not want to go to war with you on this question, 
but unless you obey the law agreed upon as binding in 
the Declaration of London we shall force you to do so 
by laying an embargo on arms. 

2. If, however, you prefer to follow the reasoning of 
your Parliament, and wish to declare the Declaration 
of London null and void so far as you are concerned 
because your Parliament refused you the ratification 
of The Hague Convention, then we regret your step, 
but we cannot deny you a certain justification. In that 
case, however, your own Law of Nations, as recently 



326 Germany's Point of View 

enunciated, by the leader of your parliamentary major- 
ity, forbids us to export arms and ammunition to you, 
if we wish to remain neutral. And since we are re- 
solved to remain neutral, we shall lay an embargo on 
the ammunition of arms. 

Why does the American Government not send one 
or the other of these answers to the British Govern- 
ment? Why does the President delay? Sympathies 
have nothing to do with the case. It is a question of 
right and wrong. Will America, the nation that has 
prided herself on being the champion of right, calmly 
submit to seeing her commerce and her trade spoiled 
and the rights of all neutrals trampled under foot, 
because the men in power happen to prefer the English 
cause, and because they may believe that an embargo 
on arms would stop the war within a few weeks, in the 
interest of Germany? Has America fallen so low that 
it must count consequences before it does what is 
right ? 

Or is it a political game, and do the leaders believe 
that a majority of the voters are anti-German, because 
the press says so? If they do, they are terribly mis- 
taken. When the vote was taken in the Massachusetts 
Legislature recently on the question of substituting the 
minority report for the majority report of the Com- 
mittee on Federal Relations, which had been against 
petitioning Congress to lay an embargo on arms, a 
change of only six votes would have carried the ques- 
tion. Six votes ! and that in the Massachusetts Legis- 
lature and in spite of an ardently pro-English press. 

Truth is the daughter of Time; and Truth will 
dawn sometimes also on the men in charge of the 



The Declaration of London 327 

news columns of the American newspapers, as it has 
begun to dawn on most of the editorial writers. Eng- 
land is no saint. America will commit no unforgive- 
able sin if she dares to speak up and boldly insists 
on her rights. To insist on her rights, moreover, is 
her duty, for she cannot be neutral if she waives her 
rights in the interest of one of the belligerents. Nor 
can she be neutral if she permits England to revert 
to her own "laws of nations," and yet — to speak 
with Mr. Bowles — "seeing two men locked in a 
deadly struggle . . . furtively hands a knife to one 
of them." 



CHAPTER XXV 



BISMARCK 



WHEN Bismarck celebrated his eightieth birthday 
and several thousand students had gathered in 
Friedrichsruh to pay him homage, he addressed to 
them, together with his thanks, a brief word of advice, 
in the course of which he said: 

For man cannot create or direct the stream of time. 
He can sail on it and steer his craft with more or less 
skill. He may be stranded and shipwrecked, or make a 
favorable port. 

The man who today looks back over the life of 
Bismarck and, knowing all the marvelous details of 
his career, wishes to value it rightly, will hardly be 
able to sum up its lesson in a crisper sentence than 
that just quoted. With all his strength and resource- 
fulness, Bismarck never forgot that he was a man, 
and that it was not given to mortals to create or direct 
the stream of time. He was thus saved the needless 
labor of those who are dissatisfied with the world in 
which they live and who, in their great eagerness to 
improve it, forget the truth of the old maxim : " Do 
as much good as you can, but take care that in so 
doing you do no harm." 

Bismarck realized, as perhaps no one so clearly 
before him, that there is no today without a yesterday, 
nor a tomorrow without a today. A turbulent past 
does not go over into a peaceful future without an 

328 



Bismarck 329 



intervening period of mixed security. Social injustice 
today, if ingrained in the thoughts of the people, can- 
not be transformed into the millennium by the passage 
of laws which as yet run counter to the stream of time. 
Let each man do his day's work as the days come 
along, untroubled by the thought that tomorrow's work 
might be more congenial or more expressive of his 
hopes for the advance of humanity. 

Custom has hallowed the centenary observances of 
the births of great men, and even if no great war were 
engaging the nations of Europe the German people 
throughout the world would be celebrating the hun- 
dredth birthday of Bismarck. In America, too, where 
many millions of Germans are living, Bismarck fes- 
tivities would have taken place, and the Americans of 
German descent, warming their hearts by the radiance 
of his strength and energy, his loyalty and readiness 
to do his duty at whatever cost, would have turned 
to the task of deserving in the future even more fully 
than in the past the praise, often bestowed on them, of 
being among the best citizens of the land. 

There is something truly Bismarckian in the thought 
of taking conditions as they are, and working day by 
day, nay, hour by hour, with a well-defined purpose, 
for the benefit of one's country. Nor is there any 
reason why a study of Bismarck and his character, 
which cannot help strengthening the patriotism of all 
who are capable of this finest of human emotions, 
should be influenced by the high passions which the 
war has aroused. A Bismarck celebration, focussed 
on the events of the moment, is of passing value, while 
a thoughtful survey of the qualities which made Bis- 
marck great will kindle convictions which, translated 



330 Germany's Point of View 

into deeds, may result in inestimable benefits to the 
country in which countless Germans have found a new 
home. 

And nothing could have pleased Bismarck better 
than this, for he once said to a company of Americans 
of German descent who had gone from Chicago to 
visit him : 

I should dearly like to see the United States of America, 
which of all foreign countries is the one we intuitively 
like best. To judge from the information which I have 
received from former immigrants, they find themselves 
comfortable and feel at home there. This cannot be said 
of those who emigrate to other countries. I will ask you 
to give three cheers for your new country, the United 
States, and to combine with them one for your own father- 
land. The two have nothing to quarrel about. * 

The reason why Bismarck possessed an appreciative 
understanding of America was because he was a 
thorough-going democrat. This may sound strange to 
those who remember that he was the son of a family 
of the nobility, and that his ancestors had been land- 
holders in Pomerania. He was, therefore, a member 
of the "Junker" class, whose ideals have been repre- 
sented as reactionary. There are many definitions of 
democracy, but as a working creed none is perhaps 
better than the conviction which Bismarck held through 
life, and which he expressed, almost on the first page 
of his Reflections and Reminiscences in these words : 
" Birth is no substitute for ability." This may prop- 
erly be called one of the chief doctrines of his life, 
from which no considerations could swerve him. His 
common sense, however, induced him to put by its 
side the other doctrine, which many so-called demo- 
crats have forgotten, that " Since birth is no substitute 



Bismarck 331 



for ability, it should also be no stumbling block in the 
path of a man who wishes to place his ability in the 
service of the State." 

People who do not know Germany have often said 
that the rise of a man of lowly birth was impossible 
there. They have, however, forgotten that Alfred 
Krupp, the founder of the largest steel industry, and 
in his time the richest man of Germany, was born of 
very lowly parents. In the commercial and industrial 
world there are countless instances of poor boys who 
have risen to the foremost positions in the empire. 
But also in the official world the highest positions are 
not so hermetically sealed to " outsiders " as foreigners 
have assumed. Heinrich Stephan, the great postmas- 
ter general under Bismarck and founder of the World's 
Postal Union, was the son of a poor cobbler in Stolp, 
the beautiful little town in Pomerania. There is no 
better instance than the career of Stephan to prove 
that Bismarck knew how to translate his maxim, 
" Birth is no substitute for ability," into practice ; and 
to this day not only Germany but the whole world is 
the debtor of Bismarck for calling Stephan to the 
position of power which enabled him to transform the 
postal service of his country and of all other civilized 
countries as well. 

Ability counted for more in Bismarck's eyes than 
anything else, but he knew that one can rarely count on 
the whole of a man's ability ; for if you wish to gauge 
a man's value to the state, you must deduct from his 
ability his vanity and count only on the balance. 
There is in human beings, unfortunately, so much 
vanity, that the available balance of serviceability is 
often ridiculously small. To say that Bismarck pos- 



332 Germany's Point of View 

sessed no vanity at all, would be stretching a point, 
but even critical observers will not be able to detect 
many instances where his vanity influenced his 
actions. This, in fact, is one of the remarkable points 
of his career that his decisions in momentous questions 
were wholly impersonal. Their bearing on himself 
and his fortunes had no interest for Bismarck. From 
his letters we know the warmth of his emotions, his 
love for his family and his home, and his thorough 
enjoyment of the pleasures of a care-free life. Yet in 
his official career, those who knew him and those who 
today read his speeches and the records of his achieve- 
ments cannot detect a single instance where a personal 
wish had been paramount with him. 

This was due to the fact that Bismarck realized that 
it is ideas and not men that rule the world. No man, 
even the greatest, can serve his state well, unless he 
has placed his whole strength in the service of an 
idea, and is willing to go wherever the idea leads. 
Men who hold such views are able to steer a straight 
course. They have a never-failing compass to guide 
them. Storms and sunny weather are all the same to 
them, and even if the clouds shut down, and there is 
no outlook ahead of them, they need not stop or fear, 
for their compass is true. 

The great idea, to the service of which Bismarck 
had consecrated his life, was the welfare of Germany. 
He said in the Reichstag on February 24, 1881 : 

I have ever had one compass only, one lode-star by 
which I have steered: Sains Publico, the welfare of the 
state. Possibly I have often acted rashly and hastily 
since I first began my career, but whenever I had time 
to think I have always acted according to one question: 
What is useful, advantageous, and right for my father- 



Bismarck 333 



land and for the German nation? ... Of the structure of 
the German Empire and the union of the German nation 
I demand that they be free and unassailable. ... I have 
given to its creation and growth my entire strength from 
the very beginning. And if you point to a single moment 
v^hen I have not steered by this direction of the compass- 
needle, you may perhaps prove that I have erred, but you 
cannot prove that I have for one moment lost sight of the 
national goal. 

Bismarck could not have steered his straight and 
happy course if he had not had implicit faith in his 
compass. All big men are men of faith, and therefore 
in the truest sense of the word religious. Bismarck 
was a Protestant by training and adhered to this 
church through life, but he had no quarrel to find with 
those who looked at heaven from a different angle. 
His long continued struggle against the pope was in 
no way a fight against Catholicism, but only a revolt 
against the political encroachment on the functions of 
the state by one of the prominent sects. The Germans 
fully realized this, even the Catholics after a while, and 
his few public references to the Deity were under- 
stood by all as reverent utterances of a devout soul. 
"We Germans fear God, naught else in the world," 
struck a responsive chord in every German heart, and 
has in dark hours given renewed strength and faith to 
countless numbers of his fellow-citizens. 

No truly religious man can be obstinate, for in 
weighty matters he is too deeply conscious of his own 
personal fallibility. He is, therefore, ever ready to 
learn and consequently not afraid of changing his 
mind. In the speech quoted above Bismarck went on 
to say : 

If a man tells me, "Twenty years ago you held the 
same -views as I ; I still hold them, but you have changed 



334 Germany's Point of View 

yours," I reply : " You see, my friend, I was as clever 
as you are today, twenty years ago. Today I know more, 
for I have learned things in these twenty years." And, 
gentlemen, there is justice in the remark that the man 
who does not learn fails to progress and cannot keep 
abreast of his time. If people keep rooted in the posi- 
tions once occupied they are falling behind. 

Bismarck never remained rooted in one spot, he 
always progressed, and, keeping abreast of his time, 
fortunately did not try to outrun it. From this danger, 
which has beset so many enthusiasts, he was preserved 
by the accuracy of his studies and his marvelous mem- 
ory. Even a casual glance through his speeches and 
letters reveals a stupendous knowledge of history, not 
only of Germany but also of the other important coun- 
tries. Nor was this knowledge merely scientific, for 
he spoke and quoted with ease English, French, and 
Russian, and showed that he had penetrated to the 
spirit of these several countries. Greek and Latin, 
especially the latter, were always at his tongue's end, 
and the appropriateness of his quotations from ancient 
and modern literature revealed the wide range of his 
thoughts. It may, in fact, be truly said of him that 
he knew mankind. 

This knowledge preserved him from making the 
mistake which has been characteristic of men since the 
world began, of believing that a thing is easy because 
at first glance it seems easy. He once expressed this 
in a beautiful simile when a learned professor of polit- 
ical science had urged a course upon him in the 
Reichstag which he considered impossible. 

The conception which the previous speaker has of the 
politics of Europe [Bismarck said, December 21, 1863] 
reminds me of a man from the plains who is on his 



Bismarck 335 



first journey to the mountains. When he sees a huge 
elevation loom up before him, nothing seems easier than 
to climb it. He does not even think that he v^ill need 
a guide, for the mountain is in plain sight, and the road 
to it apparently without obstacles. But v^hen he starts, 
he soon comes upon ravines and crevasses which not even 
the best of speeches will help him to cross. 

Bismarck always saw the obstacles in his path, and 
while he well knew that they could not be overcome by 
good intentions alone, he never permitted them to alter 
his aims. He was an indefatigable student of nature, 
and knew that in nature big things are not created big, 
but grow from little things. " The child must be born 
small," he once said, " if it is to be born at all." This . 
was his reply to a few enthusiastic friends of the Gov- 
ernment who found fault with the modest demands 
of the exchequer of the empire which Bismarck made 
in introducing the first of that wonderful welfare legis- 
lation which swept poverty from the country, and has 
since grown to be a tree of such grandeur that in its 
shade the whole world is listening for advice. 

The whole world is not quite correct, for the Massa- ^ 
chusetts Legislature has only recently rejected the 
old-age pension bill by a vote of 97 to 121, and con- 
sidered the wonderful message of Bismarck's prac- 
tical Christianity far too advanced for Massachusetts. 
In Germany, however, Bismarck introduced the first 
of these laws thirty-four years ago, on March 2, 1881. 

At first he met violent opposition on the part of the 
Liberal party, which represented the business men of 
Germany. They pointed with pride to the flourishing 
industries of England, and quoted endlessly from Eng- 
lish economic writers. Finally Bismarck replied to 
one of. their spokesmen as follows: 



336 Germany's Point of View 

The representative has called attention to the responsi- 
bility of the State for everything it does in the field on 
which it is entering today. Well, gentlemen, I feel that 
the State may become responsible also for the things it 
does not do. I do not believe that the laissez faire, laisses 
allez theory, and the unadulterated political theories of 
Manchester, such as " let each one do as he chooses, and 
see how he fares," or " who is not strong enough to 
stand, let him be crushed," or " he who has will receive, 
and he who has not, from him let us take," can be prac- 
ticed in any State. . . . On the contrary, I believe that 
those who shudder at the State exerting its influence for 
the protection of the weaker brethren, themselves intend 
to capitalize their strength — be it financial, rhetorical, or 
what not — that they may gain a following, or oppress the 
rest, or smooth their own way to party control. 

The loathing which swept over Germany for those 
who fought tooth and nail against the introduction of 
even the modest beginning of the German welfare 
legislation, and who defended every inch of the ground, 
which they saw slipping from under them, with Eng- 
lish arguments, is doubtless partly to blame for the 
readiness with which hatred of England and her merci- 
less ways has sprung up in German hearts. For the 
leaders of modern Germany were boys in those days 
when hardly a self-respecting family from Memel to 
the Rhine and from the Baltic to the Bavarian Alps 
did not shudder at the inhuman doctrines of Manches- 
ter, which every daily paper quoted as having been 
advanced in the Riechstag against the bill. The old 
Emperor William i, moreover, it was known, had set 
his heart on this legislation. Bismarck defended it 
with titanic eloquence. 

And Bismarck won. His arguments were largely 
two; first, it is the happy privilege of a state which 
can afford it to aid "the weaker brethren," for 



Bismarck 337 



we are filled with satisfaction at the thought that we may 
be able to do something in the legislature for the less for- 
tunate classes, and to wrest them, if you will grant the 
money, from the evil influences of place-hunters whose 
eloquence is too much for their intelligence. 

His second and most forceful argument, however, 
was that it is the duty of the state to provide ade- 
quately for its poor. He said: 

Our present poor laws keep the injured laboring man 
from starvation . . . According to the law, at least, no- 
body need starve. Whether in reality this never happens, 
I do not know. But this is not enough to let the men 
look contentedly into the future, and to their own old 
age. The present bill intends to keep the sense of human 
dignity alive which even the poorest German should 
enjoy! ... I am, therefore, of the opinion that a State 
. . . which possesses among its citizens an overwhelming 
majority of sincere adherents of the Christian religion, 
should do for the poor, the weak, and the old much more 
than this bill demands — as much as I hope to be able to 
ask of you next year. And such a State, especially when 
it wishes to demonstrate its practical Christianity, should 
not refuse our demands — for its own sake and for the 
sake of the poor ! 

It was characteristic of Bismarck that he based his 
main argument in this great parliamentary struggle 
on the German sense of duty. He had perceived the 
truths of life more accurately than many of his con- 
temporaries. No serious student of Bismarck's life 
and achievements can fail to learn from them lessons 
for the guidance of his own life. There is, however, 
one star in Bismarck's career which shines with a 
brighter and steadier light than all the rest, and this 
is his sense of duty. The finer lessons of his life can- 
not be learned by all, but there is not a man who 
cannot resolve to adopt for himself Bismarck's own 
motto : " I am doing my duty, let come what may ! " 



CHAPTER XXVI 



BULGARIA 



WHEN Bulgaria, Greece, and Servia combined 
forces in the first Balkan war they forgot, over 
the prospect of gain, that they really hated each other 
worse than any of them hated the Turks, and when 
they felt cheated, the ones by the others, at the treaty 
of peace, and began to fight each other in the second 
Balkan war, they merely reverted to their natural state 
of mutual hate and suspicion. This condition exists 
today. To assume that the Bulgars would fight for 
the Servs or the Russians for love and because they 
are all said to be Slavs, is about as reasonable as to 
count on a grand alliance of cats and dogs because 
they are all quadrupeds. 

The Bulgars are a Tartar race, mixed, to be sure, 
with the Slavs of the country they conquered. They 
lost in this process their original language and adopted 
that of their victims, which is akin to the Servian 
tongue. But though they took the speech of the people 
they conquered, they never forgot that the Bulgars 
were the victors and the resident Slavs their slaves. 
To this day the Bulgars deem it an arrant assumption 
if the Servians claim equality with them. For the 
justice of their view, they point to their own well-regu- 
lated state and the loosely knit community, called 
Servia, where murderers and pirates go unpunished 
and even the highest officials are openly in the pay of 
foreign sovereigns. 

338 



Bulgaria 339 

The racial contempt, moreover, which the Bulgars 
feel for the Servians is intensified by the difference in 
the religion of the two people ; a difference which ex- 
ists less in the dogma than in the administration of the 
church. The Bulgarian church is independent, with 
its separate pope, the so-called exarch, while the Ser- 
vians have never been able to free themselves from 
the authority of the Greek patriarch. Dogmatically, 
both churches are what is called Greek orthodox ; that 
is, adherents of the eastern wing of the Christian 
church, which was divided when the split came, and the 
western part received the name of Roman Catholic. 

When the Turks captured Constantinople, and the 
whole eastern part of the Roman Empire, they decided 
to deal with their Christian subjects, in matters spirit- 
ual, through one authority only, and since their Greek 
subjects happened to be most prominent, they decided 
on the chief pope of the Greeks, the so-called patriarch. 
In spiritual matters his word was supreme throughout 
the East until the Russians, who profess the same 
faith, cut this bond and vested their highest ecclesias- 
tical office in the Czar : In Turkey, however, Bulgars, 
Servs, Greeks, and all other Christians remained sub- 
ject to the Greek patriarch. 

An analogous development took place in the west 
of Europe, for theoretically the whole West remained 
one state, the Holy Roman Empire of German nation- 
ality. Only England stood outside this union, and 
when she renounced the spiritual sovereignty of the 
pope she merely did what Russia had done, she nation- 
alized her church. There is much justification for 
the contention of those priests of the Anglican High 
Church who hold that their church is still catholic. 



340 Germany's Point of View 

In the East the Turkish yoke suppressed all the 
national aspirations of the several races which made 
up the Ottoman Empire, while in the West the un- 
wieldy state was broken up into individual nations 
largely with the help of the spiritual head of the 
church in Rome. The secular rulers were, in the long 
run, not the equals of the popes. As a result, the pow- 
ers of the emperors were restricted, while those of 
the popes were extended. The willingness with which 
the several nations submitted to the spiritual powers 
of a chief bishop, who had no connection with them 
nationally, testifies both to the intensity of the west- 
ern spiritual life and to the bigness of the men who 
guided it. 

It was very different in the East, where the Turkish 
Dominion had not only repressed all forceful nation- 
alistic instincts, but where also the spiritual authority 
dreaded every manifestation of these instincts. The 
patriarchs, unlike the popes, were continually inferior 
to the secular rulers,' and realized that their sphere of 
influence would be lessened as soon as one or the other 
of the subjugated nationalities should establish its 
independence. 

The spirit of nationality, however, cannot be killed. 
In primitive people it may be repressed for a time, but 
unless history lies it dies only in effete individuals of 
an artificially high civilization. The three big Chris- 
tian nations, therefore, which were contained in the 
Turkish Empire, the Greeks, the Bulgars, and the 
Servs, never entirely forgot their dreams, or, as occa- 
sional leaders called it, the goal of their existence. 

The Greeks were the strongest, and had a great 
advantage because they supplied the spiritual leaders 



Bulgaria 341 

through whom alone the Turks deigned to communi- 
cate with their Christian subjects. Many of these 
Greek patriarchs were undoubtedly noble administra- 
tors of their trust, but all of them together could not 
resist the temptation of forcing their own language 
upon the Christians under their charge. The few 
schools which existed were ecclesiastical schools, and 
it is a marvel of histpry that neither the Bulgars nor 
the Servs lost the remnants of their individuality, 
ground as they were between the upper millstone of 
Turkish rule and the nether stone of Greek spiritual 
authority. It was, perhaps, the hopelessness of a re- 
volt against the Turks which drove all their latent feel- 
ings of nationality into the one endeavor to preserve 
their language against the Greek influences of their 
church. 

So long as the three races were equally oppressed by 
the Turks the common bond of misery prevented ex- 
cesses, but when Greece had won her political inde- 
pendence, early in the nineteenth century, conditions 
became intolerable, especially for the prouder of the 
remaining victims — the Bulgars. In consequence 
the various Bulgarian-speaking parishes established 
closer relations between themselves, without at first 
aiming at a spiritual independence from the Greek 
patriarch. The earliest union of Bulgarian parishes* 
took place in Ueskiib in 1833. In the next year Weles 
and Samakow joined the movement, and in 1840 Wid- 
din, Tirnowo, and Philippopel were added to the list. 

The beginning was thus made of a distinctively na- 

* This account of the history of Bulgaria is based on Rich- 
ard von Mach's Der Machthereich des bulgarischcn exarchats 
in der Tiirkei, Leipzig, 1906. English translation, London, 
T. Fisher Unwin. 



342 Germany's Point of View 

tionalistic movement, and when the successes of Rus- 
sia against Turkey opened the eyes of the more far- 
seeing leaders to the possibiHty of a future state, ever 
more parishes were asked to join and gladly accepted 
the invitation. The movement spread, therefore, far 
beyond the limits of those parts where only Bulgarians 
live to the provinces of Thrace and Macedonia, where 
Bulgarian, Greek, and Servian parishes were found 
side by side, and where often in individual parishes, 
not the number of communicants but the zeal of one 
or the other fraction made it a Bulgarian or a Servian 
or a Greek parish. In disputed cases, of course, the 
Greek patriarch was apt to rule in favor of his own 
people, and to decree that the parish was Greek, and 
that the church services should be conducted, and the 
children be taught, in Greek. This aroused much bit- 
terness, and finally resulted in a petition to the sultan 
that a special head of the Bulgarian parishes should be 
appointed. This bishop of the Bulgars was to be sub- 
ject to the patriarch. In his own province, however, 
he should be supreme. 

In the meanwhile, however, the Greek patriarch, 
whose official residence had continued to be Constan- 
tinople, had grown much too strong for the liking of 
the sultan, for he had drawn added strength not only 
from his own independent country, but also from the 
backers of that country, especially England. The 
Turkish maxim for the preservation of a comfortable 
peace at home had always been to play off the next 
strongest party against the strongest. On March ii, 
1870, therefore, the sultan issued his firman establish- 
ing the Bulgarian Exarchate, comprising about six- 
teen dioceses, and decreeing that other parishes might 



Bulgaria 343 

join, "if all or at least two-thirds of all the orthodox 
inhabitants " of a village or city should so vote. 

Roughly speaking, the dioceses mentioned in the 
firman comprise the whole of the original principality 
of Bulgaria, East Roumelia, and the districts of Nish 
and Pirot. In these latter a considerable number of 
the inhabitants are Servians. The latter, therefore, 
felt deeply aggrieved, and since the firman had been 
issued under the influence of Russia, saw in it an evi- 
dence of Russian hostility toward themselves and 
favoritism shown to Bulgaria. In the treaty of Ber- 
lin, however, these two districts in their entirety were 
unjustly added to Servia. 

The patriarch himself openly declared that he 
refused to recognize the Bulgarian Exarchate, and 
nothing could have been more advantageous for the 
Bulgarians, for the obstinacy of the patriarch led to 
a complete break between himself and the Bulgarian 
bishops, which resulted in the independence of their 
church. At first it had not occurred to them that a 
complete separation from the Greek Church was meant 
or even possible. After the several eparchies, that is, 
dioceses, had been organized, three of the Bulgarian 
bishops went to Constantinople to pay their respects 
to the patriarch and to ask his permission to conduct 
divine service in the Bulgarian church in the city. 
The patriarch refused to receive them and forbade the 
service. 

Trusting to the promises of the government, the 
bishops nevertheless conducted the service in their 
church, whereupon the patriarch requested the sultan 
to banish the bishops and to close the church. This 
the sultan actually did, possibly because he did not 



344 Germany's Point of View 

wish to have the Bulgarians grow too strong, possibly 
because he habitually followed a zig-zag policy. At 
any rate, he soon changed his mind again, recalled 
the bishops, and even commanded them to proceed to 
the election of the first exarch. This was in 1872. 
The choice fell on Antim, Bishop of Widdin, whose 
election was ratified by the sultan on February 26. 
A few weeks later he arrived in Constantinople, where 
not only the Prime Minister, but the sultan himself, 
received him with marks of great distinction, on 
April II. 

The Bulgarian Church had thus been established, 
but its head was still subject to the Greek patriarch. 
The new exarch, therefore, called on his superior, 
who, however, refused to receive him, although he 
repeated his call three times. The patriarch in his 
turn made two categoric demands ; first, that the exarch 
drop his title and call himself Bishop of Widdin ; and, 
secondly, that the exarchate be not called the Bul- 
garian but the Hamos Exarchate. Both demands were 
declined, and when the patriarch remained obdurate, 
the exarch conducted divine service in the Bulgarian 
church, without permission, on April 22,, and on 
May II read a proclamation to the people decreeing 
the independence of the Bulgarian Church. 

It is very doubtful whether the Bulgarian people 
as a whole, who had been brought up to see in the 
patriarch their spiritual leader, would have followed 
the exarch in his bold course of national independ- 
ence, if the patriarch had not committed his final 
blunder and excommunicated every member of the 
exarchate, and declared the whole Bulgarian clergy 
and laity heretics, on September 16, 1872. 



Bulgaria 345 

This is the state of the Bulgarian Church today 
so far as the patriarch and the Greek Church, to 
which the Servs also belong, is concerned. Eastern 
people take their religion seriously. The Bulgars deny 
the right of the patriarch to excommunicate them, 
because he had no further authority over them after 
the decree of separation, but they feel excessively 
bitter at his having taken this step. The Greeks and 
Servs, however, look upon the Bulgarians as heretics 
and justly excommunicated. One must have lived in 
Catholic countries to know what this means. A man 
who is excommunicated is unclean and despicable, and 
nobody owes him a duty. Perhaps this thought eased 
the conscience of the Greeks and the Servs, when they 
cheated the Bulgarians after the first Balkan war out 
of those portions of Macedonia which had been agreed 
upon as their share of the booty. The systematic 
way in which this was done is portrayed in the report 
on the Balkan wars issued by the international com- 
mission of the Carnegie Endowment of International 
Peace (1914). When the Servians entered Macedonia 
they compelled the Bulgarian parishes to sign a paper 
like the following : * 

In order that once for all the question of our national 
feeling may be firmly established, and that a serious error 
may at the same time be wholly refuted, we, Slavs of 
Bitolia, hitherto attached to the exarchy, do today, being 
assembled in the Orthodox church of St. Wedelia, state as 
follows : First, that we are familiar from history that we 
have been Servians since ancient times, and that the Turks 
conquered the countries which we now inhabit from the 
Servians five and a half centuries ago. Second, that there 
is no difference either in nationality or in faith, or in lan- 

* International Commission to Enquire Into the Causes and 
Conduct of the Balkan Wars. Report, 1914, p. 176, Carnegie 
Endowment for International Peace. 



346 Germany's Point of View 

guage, or in customs between us and the Servians, as is 
proved by many remembrances and by the Servian schools, 
which were the only ones in existence in these lands up 
to the time of the Turco-Servian war of 1876-78. Third, 
that our ancestors were, and that we are, called Servians, 
but that under the recent influence of Bulgarian propa- 
ganda, and above all under the terror caused by the Comi- 
tadjis, we have, in quite recent times, begun to turn our 
eyes to the Bulgarians, in the hope that, thanks to their 
preponderance in what was once the Turkish kingdom, 
they would be better able than the Servians to free us 
from our servitude. Fourth, that in the last war with the 
Turks, the Bulgarians instead of assisting and freeing us, 
appropriated Thrace and liberated non-Slav populations. 
Fifth, that the Servians have, by superhuman efforts and 
enormous sacrifices, taken these lands unassisted and so 
put an end to our servitude. Sixth, that both before and 
after the war the Servians treated us really as their 
brothers, while on the contrary the Bulgarians were at 
pains to separate us from our liberators. Seventh, that on 
the seventeenth of last month the Bulgarians attacked the 
Servian army, which shed its blood for them before 
Adrianople; an attack for which the whole civilized world 
condemns them. Eighth, that the Bulgarians desired to 
expose the people of these countries to new misfortunes 
and to destruction by their attempt at sending hither bands 
of brigands to burn the villages and pillage the people. 
Wherefore, we declare our entire solidarity with our 
Servian brothers and liberators; with them we will work 
in the future, shoulder to shoulder, to strengthen our coun- 
try — Greater Servia. 

People who refused to sign such declarations v^ere 
subjected to physical suffering and expelled from the 
country, as were also all the bishops and teachers of 
the Bulgarian Exarchate. All the Bulgarian schools 
were closed and parents forced to send their children 
to the Servian schools, while strict orders were issued 
that children should not be sent out of the country to 
be educated elsewhere. 

The pages of the Carnegie Report are open to all, 



Bulgaria 347 

and it is not necessary to repeat the many instances 
of inhuman cruelty with which the Servians perse- 
cuted every Bulgar in the newly conquered provinces. 
The result was, on paper, a loyal population of ardent 
believers in Greater Servia ; in fact, however, a smoul- 
dering hate and contempt for the Servs in every Bulgar 
heart. 

Nor are the Bulgars whitewashed in the report by 
any means. They, too, were guilty, it seems, of a 
conduct that shocked the gentlemanly investigators; 
but that, stripped of many exaggerations, was no 
surprise to those who knew the Balkans. 

The Greeks, however, whose closer contact with the 
more civilized nations in recent years had established 
the presumption that they had completely outgrown the 
savage tendencies which characterize the Servians, sur- 
prised the world by a ferocity and hatred of the Bul- 
gars such as only the religious conflicts of centuries 
ago exhibit. Quoting from documents in its posses- 
sion, the Carnegie committee asserts* that the Greeks 
killed their Bulgarian prisoners, by official order, 
"that the dirty Bulgarian race may not spring up 
again." 

Nothing, however, can bring home to the average 
reader the intensity of hate which the schism between 
the Patriarchical (Greek) and the Exarchical (Bul- 
gar) churches has created, than the popular Greek 
war poster of a year ago, which is reprinted in the 
reportf and is described on the next page as follows : 

It shows a Greek highlander holding a living Bulgarian 
soldier with both hands, while he gnaws the face of his 



* Carnegie Report, p. 148. 
t Carnegie Report, p. 96. 



34^ Germany's Point of View 

victim with his teeth, like some beast of prey. It is en- 
titled the Bulgar-eater, and is adorned with the following 
verses : 

" The sea of fire which boils in my breast, 
And calls for vengeance with the savage waves of my soul, 
Will be quenched when the monsters of Sofia are still, 
And thy life blood extinguishes my hate." 

This hate is returned in kind by the Bulgars, albeit 
with that moderation which characterizes the superior 
race, and that the Bulgars as a nation are superior to 
the Greeks and vastly superior to the Servs, nobody 
who has visited the three countries can doubt. It is, 
therefore, humanly impossible to assume that in the 
present European war Bulgaria should voluntarily 
fight on the side of Servia or of Greece ; and every 
contrary report may be dismissed as fantastic. 

Nor does Bulgaria harbor any feelings of gratitude 
toward Russia. Her establishment as a nation, while 
seemingly the result of the Russo-Turkish war of 
1877, was in fact only the culmination of her religious 
independence won by herself and secured by the firman 
of the Sultan in 1870. The subsequent favors shown 
her by Russia have been balanced, in her mind, by the 
many instances when Russian support has failed her. 
She has fully realized that Russia has never had a 
real interest in any of the Balkan States, but has 
been using them as pawns in her political game. 

Germany and Bulgaria have always been good 
friends, for it was Germany who taught her how to 
govern herself. The bloodless revolution which turned 
out Prince Alexander and all his high officials of 
German blood was not a hostile demonstration, but a 
declaration that the time had come when Bulgaria had 
learned her lesson and could manage her own affairs. 



Bulgaria 349 

The Austro-Bulgarian relations used to be less cor- 
dial, because Austria was intimate with Milan, the 
king of the despised Servs. When the royal regime 
in Servia changed, and Austria too had to suffer from 
the Servs, a bond of sympathy, as it were, drew Aus- 
tria and Bulgaria more closely together. The Bulgars, 
however, are not the people to haul the chestnuts out 
of the fire for anybody. They have the perfectly 
justifiable desire of deserving the name of a civilized 
nation, and, proud of the settled conditions in their 
own country, when everything about them is chaos, 
they are not going to enter this war unless necessity 
forces them into it. Since an overwhelming victory 
of the Servians is out of the question, there appear 
at present only three contingencies which might induce 
the Bulgars to run once more the risks of war. With 
their great hopes of a national future, they cannot 
calmly watch Russia take Constantinople and settle 
to the south of them. If it should, therefore, appear 
that Constantinople is in imminent danger and that 
Bulgaria's help could save it, she might enter the war. 

The second contingency is if she should be attacked. 
This could not be directly, but only through Roumania, 
and, since the latter has given no signs whatsoever of 
any such intentions, this danger is remote. If Rou- 
mania, however, as has been suggested, should attack 
Austria-Hungary with a view to making conquests, 
this might be construed by Bulgaria as an indirect 
attack upon her future ; for no state can see his 
neighbor grow overstrong by conquest without seeing 
his own prospects jeopardized. Those who know Rou- 
mania, however, claim that she is far too honorable to 
attack Austria-Hungary now, when the Dual Monarchy 



350 Germany's Point of View 

is fighting for its life, for any territory snatched from 
Austria under such conditions is tainted property. 

The last contingency is that, in a time when passions 
are high everywhere, Bulgaria's own hatred of the 
Servs and all adherents of the Patriarchal Church 
may prove too great for her common sense. Her self- 
possession in having kept out of the war thus long is 
commendable, but if England should succeed in forc- 
ing Greece to do her bidding and assist the allied fleet 
before the Dardanelles by landing troops on the pen- 
insula of Gallipoli, it will be hard, if not impossible, 
for the government to restrain the people. For there 
is not a loyal Bulgar anywhere who does not feel it 
his pleasant and sacred duty to honor his church by' 
taking vengeance on the Servs and on the Greeks. 



CHAPTER XXVII 

THE EXPORTATION OF ARMS 

THE assumption that an embargo on the export 
of arms might inure to the benefit of Germany 
is not the reason why an embargo is demanded. On 
the contrary, it is a reason why many shrink from 
asking for it pubHcly, for they dishke to appear as 
the defenders of a cause the fruition of which would 
result in material benefits to themselves or to their 
friends. In the thoughts of most advocates of the 
embargo this whole question is of little consequence. 
The reason why it has been here mentioned is because 
of the wish that no misunderstanding should prevail. 
The advocates of the embargo say very frankly: 

If you chose to think meanly of us and believe that we 
have an ulterior motive, and wish to help Germany while 
we shout for neutrality, we know what you have in mind, 
and we are not afraid to state it. But you are mistaken. 
Our reasons are of an entirely different sort, springing 
directly from our hearts. 

In order to understand this the reader should picture 
a little group of men gathered recently in a committee 
room in Boston. They were all American citizens, 
some of them born in this country, and yet there was 
not a man there who had not a brother, cousin, uncle, 
or more distant relatives on the firing line. One, a 
merchant long established in Boston, has two brothers 
and ten cousins at the front; while another had re- 

351 



352 Germany s Point of View 

cently heard of the death of five sons of one family 
of friends. All the men present in that room had 
received letters in which the American cartridges and 
shrapnels had been spoken of as more deadly than 
those of French manufacture previously used by the 
Allies. A brief note was alread read from a captain in 
the German flying corps — up to last summer the 
manager of one of the big shipping interests in 
Boston — who wrote : 

The American shrapnels have arrived, watch the death 
lists ; they will be longer hereafter. 

Suddenly one of the men jumped up, crying: 

I can stand it no longer. It is terrible to think that 

should die. I could be reconciled with the thought that 
he should be killed on the field of honor, but to think that 
he should die by a bullet made in x\merica, in a factory 
built perhaps with my own money, loaned by one of our 
banks, this is too much ! We have no quarrel with Ger- 
many, and yet we are killing her sons. 

This is the reason why from Maine to California 
and from the Canadian border to the Gulf of Mexico, 
Americans of German descent have risen like one man 
demanding that the traffic in arms should be stopped. 
Their chorus of voices is swelling louder and louder: 

Cease the export of arms; cease killing our brother; 
cease talking neutrality, when you know that in fact we 
are not neutral. The old fairy tale that the Government 
is not responsible for what the individual citizens are 
doing was all right when the people and the Government 
were distinct. In America, however, the people are the 
Government, and the Government should be the people. 
We should be governed by what we know and feel is right, 
and not by the commercial privileges held out to con- 
scienceless traders by the socalled law of nations — that 
remnant of the outworn order of things with which our 
republic broke definitely in 1776. 



The Exportation of Arms 353 

There can be no doubt that these sentiments" are 
honest and that the men and women who utter them 
feel them deeply. Is not a big republic like the United 
States based on the readiness of the majority to con- 
sider the sacredness of the feelings of their fellow 
citizens? Why have the pro-Allies been so unwilling 
to understand those who think differently? Why this 
uncompromising attitude of scorn and vilification? A 
possible answer is found in the remarkable fact that 
the leaders of the bitter anti-German movement are 
exceedingly old men, probably incapable of grasping 
new ideas when their minds are made up. When the 
history of this war is written, in so far as it affects 
America, people will marvel at the excedingly old age 
of this leadership. Of the four men in the first rank, 
only one is on the sunny side of seventy, while alto- 
gether they average over seventy-five years of age ! 
There is no parallel in the history of the world for 
this phenomenon, that a majority of the most highly 
educated people of a big nation should follow the lead 
and hang on the words of men of such extreme old 
age! 

These men cannot hear the grumble of discontent 
and feel the heartaches of millions of their fellow 
citizens. If one were to believe that this leadership 
would last, one might well despair of the future of 
the country. But it cannot last. So young and vigor- 
ous, so joyous and courageous a nation as the United 
States will not for long endure the autocratic guidance 
of octogenarians. 

There is, moreover, perceptible everywhere a quick- 
ened sense of moral responsibility against the expor- 
tation of arms, although many people whose natural 



354 Germany's Point of View 

sympathies are with one or all of the Allies are troubled 
by the thought, zealously suggested to them, that 
America could not stop the exportation of arms with- 
out thereby committing an unneutral, if not a dis- 
tinctly unfriendly, act towards Great Britain. This, 
the advocates of the embargo believe, is a very erro- 
neous suggestion. In the first place. Great Britain 
has forced several neutral nations since the war began 
to decree embargoes against Germany. She would 
surely not maintain before the world that she had 
forced these nations to commit unneutral acts. But 
if the laying of an embargo during the progress of 
the war at the behest of England is not unneutral, 
America need not fear to be unneutral if she decrees 
an embargo at the behest of her own sense of 
humaneness. 

Such a decree can only be issued on the authority 
of Congress, unless perchance some existing law 
should give such an authority to the President. In 
either case it can be done, under present conditions, 
only at the demand of the people at large. For this 
reason the advocates of the measure are endeavoring 
to persuade their fellow citizens to agree with them 
that the American standard of morality demands such 
a course. There is nothing un-American in this en- 
deavor, and when Mr. C. R. Miller and the New York 
Times call this a foreign propaganda it would seem 
that their real arguments are not strong enough to 
stand the light of day. 

But it is claimed that the whole movement is perni- 
cious because it contraverts international law. Again, 
nothing could be further from the truth. International 
law is nothing but the usage of centuries, often forced 



The Exportation of Arms 355 

on unwilling nations. In the eighteenth century sev- 
eral countries revolted against the English interpreta- 
tion of what was right or wrong in war; and nothing 
was more natural than that America should have stood 
up boldly, from the very first, for a more liberal inter- 
pretation. Roughly speaking, England claimed that in 
war, when the interests of the belligerents and of the 
neutrals clash, those of the former are paramount, 
while America urged that those of the latter have the 
precedence. If America's contention, which was first 
advanced more than one hundred years ago, had 
been adopted, it would have resulted in the absolute 
freedom of the sea, and the neutral commerce with 
both belligerents would have been as assured in war 
as in peace. Since there would not have been any 
interference with the commerce of a neutral, con- 
traband trade, too, would have been safe from in- 
terruption. 

The American contention came only once near being 
accepted by other nations, when, at the second Hague 
Conference, the "American idea," in a slightly modified 
form, was presented to the conference by Joseph 
Choate on June 24, 1907, and voted upon July 17. It 
received twenty-one of the thirty-three votes present; 
among them those of Germany, Austria-Hungary, 
Italy, the Scandinavian countries, Turkey, and China. 
Eleven countries voted against it, France, Russia, and 
Japan rallying to the support of Great Britain, who 
wanted to beat it. Chile abstained from voting, and 
several unimportant countries had not been repre- 
sented. When England saw herself beaten she added 
up the number of inhabitants in the countries that 
had supported her and in her own numerous colonies 



356 Germany's Point of View 

and those of her friends, and announced that really 
her side had won, for her eleven votes represented 
729,000,000 of people, while the twenty-one votes 
which had carried the motion represented 804,000,000 
of people, "400,000,000 of whom were Chinese." 
Mr. Choate saw the English point that Chinese 
are not " people " in the sense of Englishmen or 
Gurkas, and, although his proposal had won an over- 
whelming majority of the votes, gracefully yielded to 
England and withdrew the American proposal. It is 
the same Mr. Choate who today is one of the bitterest 
old men leaders against Germany. It was Germany 
who supported the "American idea" throughout, and 
whom Mr. Choate deserted in the conference to please 
England. Possibly this act of treachery explains his 
present animosity, for one hates nobody so badly as 
him whom one remembers having cheated. 

With this one exception, when the "American idea '* 
came near being made part of the written law of 
nations, America has not met with much success in 
having other countries accept her views of the proper 
conduct of naval warfare. If, however, she had been 
successful, she would now have been able to export 
munitions of war as safely to Germany as to the Allies. 
If under such conditions public opinion should have 
spoken against the nefarious traffic in death-dealing 
weapons, she could have stopped it without fear of 
being unneutral, because both belligerents would have 
suffered equally. 

As a matter of fact, the "American idea" has not 
been accepted, although it has been eloquently stated 
by many American statesmen. To quote from them 
today in favor of the export of arms, and to disregard 



The Exportation of Arms 357 

the fact that their contentions have never been accepted 
in toto, is misleading. 

The conventions of The Hague of 1907 and the 
Declaration of London of 1909, were attempts at an 
agreement between the diametrically opposed views 
of the paramount rights of the belligerents and the 
independent rights of the neutrals. On several points 
no agreements could be reached; in others, separate 
treaties into which America had entered with one state 
or another offered valuable suggestions. On the whole, 
it would seem fair to say that the Declaration of 
London represented the highest moral standard on 
which all the nations were able to agree. It was signed 
by the delegate of Great Britain, an act which Sir 
Edward Grey declared was sufficient to bind the 
country. Parliament, under the leadership of Mr. 
T. Gibson Bowles, was of another opinion and refused 
its formal ratification. On the strength of this, Eng- 
land has now felt at liberty to alter it, and practically 
to disregard it. In other words, she has allowed 
herself to follow a lower standard than the one to 
which her Government had acceded. Does that mean 
that America should follow suit and herself be no 
longer willing to be guided by principles the correct- 
ness of which have remained undisputed, although 
England has claimed her " necessity " as an excuse 
for disregarding them? 

Unfortunately, this is exactly what our Government 
has done by permitting England to set her own 
standard. In so doing, many people believe that 
America was not only not true to herself, but that 
she did so with a distinct preference of one of the 
belligerents, thus endangering her strict neutrality. 



358 Germany's Point of View 

But having done so, it is incumbent upon her to shape 
her actions impartially according to the new — or 
rather old — standard which she has been willing to 
accept. 

The old standard has been variously interpreted, 
and it is possible to cite numerous writers on almost 
any phase of the subject. The most recent interpre- 
tation of it was given by Mr. T. Gibson Bowles. What 
is the use of referring to legal writers long dead, when 
the success of Mr. Bowles in Parliament* proves that 
he represents the present working majority of the 
British people? It was he who advised his colleagues 
to beat the Declaration of London and to revert to 
the good old standard, which he interpreted for them — 
with little opposition. He calls the export of arms to 
one or both belligerents monstrous, unneutral, and 
contrary to the law of nations. 

To deal with England in everything affecting her 
interests according to the standard of Mr. Bowles' 
choice, and to return to the entirely different standard 
of the "American idea " when the actions of individual 
citizens which hurt Germany are concerned, is not 
in keeping with the American standards of honest 
morality. 

Another thing also should not be forgotten. The 
present export trade in munitions of war is not a 
natural one, for it is not only the established factories 
which are selling their products. An entirely new 
and artificially stimulated industry has been created. 
Everywhere new factories are being built, or existing 



* Mr. Bowles was not re-elected to the last Parliament, and 
although the House voted against his views the Lords sus- 
tained him, and the Government acquiesced in the decision. 



The Exportation of Arms 359 

buildings remodeled to enable their owners to get their 
share of the Judas money. 

Suppose America were at war and every available 
house and factory in Canada should be turned into a 
gun factory and arms and munitions of war be sold 
to America's enemies in proportions of thousand 
and more percent of the natural output of the coun- 
try: would America not feel that Canada was in 
fact fighting against her, however many authorities 
should be quoted to prove that legally Canada was 
neutral ? 

It has never been denied that until an embargo is 
laid on the export of munitions of war the individual 
manufacturer is legally unassailable. What is claimed 
is that he is morally wrong. Nor is this a view held 
only by men of German extraction, for a number of 
manufacturers have declined the English orders. To 
spread the high moral sense of these men among all 
Americans is the aim of the advocates of an embargo. 
President Cleveland held much the same view, for he 
said in his annual message, December 2, 1895, in 
reference to Cuba : 

The plain duty of their [the citizens of the United 
States] Government is to observe in good faith the recog- 
nized obligations of international relationship. The per- 
formance of this duty should not be made more difficult 
by a disregard on the part of our citizens of the obliga- 
tions growing out of their allegiance to their country 
which should restrain them from violating as individuals 
the neutrality which the nation of which they are mem- 
bers is bound to observe in its relations to friendly sov- 
ereign States. 

These words are unmistakable. President Cleveland 
asks his fellow citizens to refrain from doing as indi- 



360 Germany's Point of View 

viduals what the State as such is prevented from 
doing if it wishes to remain neutral. Not even the 
most ardent advocates of the export of arms claim 
that the United States as such can export arms and 
be neutral. If one, therefore, asks the Americans to 
desist from the exportation of arms, one follows the 
advice of President Cleveland, an undoubtedly patriotic 
American. 

But if this was Cleveland's advice in regard to Cuba, 
when only few people of Cuban blood were residents 
of America, how much more would he have counselled 
such abstinence in the present war, when millions of 
Americans are hit in their own flesh and blood by every 
bullet sent from these shores ! 

And more, the men of Germanic stock in this coun- 
try are loyal to the Stars and Stripes, however dear 
the Fatherland is to them. They, therefore, see with 
growing anxiety the anger of the Germans at what 
appears to them to be the unneutral attitude of 
America. Germany is in no position to make war 
upon America, but so much more scrupulous should 
the United States be in its observance of true neutral- 
ity, for no other course is compatible with its high 
sense of morality. What is sauce to the goose is sauce 
for the gander. During the Mexican war the United 
States asserted that a bona fide neutrality and the 
export of arms are incompatible, and declared the 
latter to be a casus belli. 

And in case he [the officer in command] should after- 
wards at any time discover that under the guise of neu- 
trality the Yucatanese are carrying on a contraband trade 
and furnishing Mexico with arms and munitions of war, 
he will be instructed without further orders from his Gov- 
ernment to recommence hostile operations. 



The Exportation of Arms 361 

These words were written by Mr. Buchanan, Secre- 
tary of State, February 22, 1847; while Mr. Seward 
wrote on August 7, 1865 • 

British subjects who intervene in our Civil War in the 
manner . . . mentioned {i. e., by selling munitions 
of war] are by the law of nations liable to be treated by 
this Government as enemies of the United States, having 
no lawful claim to be protected by Her Majesty's Gov- 
ernment. 

Applying this doctrine at the present time, it means 
that there are thousands of people in America today 
whom Germany is justified in considering as enemies. 
Under the American form of government this is an 
anomaly, as appears from a decision of the United 
States Supreme Court,* which says: 

The intercourse of this country with foreign nations 
and its policy in regard to them are placed by the Con- 
stitution of the United States in the hands of the Govern- 
ment, and its decisions upon these subjects are obligatory 
upon every citizen of the Union. He is bound to be at 
war with the nation against which the war-making power 
has declared war, and equally bound to commit no act of 
hostility against a nation with which the Government is 
in amity and friendship. 

This principle is universally acknowledged. ... It 
is, however, more emphatically true of citizens of the 
United States. For as the sovereignty resides in the 
people, every citizen is a portion of it and is himself per- 
sonally bound by the laws which the representatives of 
the sovereignty may pass, or the treaties into which they 
may enter. . . . The compact is made by the Depart- 
ment of the Government upon which he himself has 
agreed to confer the power. It is his own personal com- 
pact as a portion of the sovereignty. 

This decision was quoted by Mr. Olney as Secretary 
of State on June 18, 1895, in his reply to Mr. Massey, 

* Kennet vs. Chambers 14 How. 38, 49. 



362 Germany's Point of View 

who had asked whether he would be legally and morally 
right if his bank acted as a depository for the funds of 
the insurgents in Cuba. Mr. Olney replied that Mr. 
Massey might possibly be within his legal rights, but 
that his ''moral duty in the premises does not admit 
of the least question." To act as a depository for the 
insurgents would be a hostile act against Spain, with 
whom the United States was at peace. Morally, there- 
fore, Mr. Massey could not undertake the trust. 

If this was so in Mr. Massey 's case, how much more 
is it so in the case of the present exportation of arms, 
which has grown to such proportions that it amounts 
to "an important aid of the war," in which case it is 
no longer neutral, according to a recent decision.* 
There can be no doubt that, whatever the legal aspect 
of the case is, the American much-inflated traffic in 
arms is morally wrong. It is deeply felt to be so by 
millions of American citizens. Is it worthy of America 
to continue a practice which cannot be defended as 
morally correct, and which brings deep sorrow, shame, 
and suffering to a great part if not actually a majority 
of the people, merely because it pays? 

* See Moore's Digest, vii., 960. 



CHAPTER XXVIII 

THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRALS 

THERE are no rights without duties, no privileges 
without obHgations. And it is largely from this 
point of view that Mr. Bryan's Easter gift to Eng- 
land, in the shape of his note to Sir Edward Grey, 
deserves condemnation. He assured his august friend 
of his faith in England, and expressed his hope that 
the British Order-in-Council, which forbade neutral 
nations to trade with Germany, did not mean exactly 
what it said, and that it could be explained as not an 
infringement of the rights of neutrals. 

Public opinion in this country is so sharply divided 
between pro-Ally and pro-German that a purely Amer- 
ican discussion is rendered difficult. Fortunately, a 
safe escape from this dilemma is offered by the com- 
parison of the actions of the American Government 
with those of other neutral States. The note of the 
Dutch Government in reply to the same British Order- 
in-Council has just come to hand and deserves careful 
perusal. The note translated reads as follows : 

The Dutch Government does not wish to pass judgment 
on the rectitude of the measures taken by the belligerents, 
but it is the duty of the Netherlands, as a neutral Power, 
to raise its voice when these measures infringe ac- 
knowledged principles concerning the rights of neutral 
States. 

At the very beginning of the war the Dutch Govern- 
ment protested against every curtailment by the bel- 
ligerents of the rights of neutrals, and did so in the in- 

363 



364 Germany's Point of View 



terest both of the rights of Holland as a neutral Power 
and of the law of nations. 

The Dutch attitude cannot be other now in view of the 
measures taken [by the Allies], since they ignore the great 
principle of the Declaration of Paris, according to which 
neutral and hostile property, except contraband, is in- 
violate so long as it is protected by a neutral flag. 

In abolishing this principle the British Order-in-Council 
has decreed that the British fleet should put into execution 
arbitrary measures of force not only against the private 
property of the enemy, even if it is not contraband, but 
also against the property of neutrals if there is a sus- 
picion that this property is of enemy origin or destination. 

The instructors of the British Government hold out 
promises that these measures will be applied rather 
leniently where neutral property is concerned, but no 
definite rules have been issued, as a guide, to protect the 
interests of shipping and commerce. 

Article 8 leaves the possibility of moderating the in- 
structions of the Order-in-Council, so far as the ships of 
countries are concerned which declare that no transporta- 
tion of goods to and from Germany or of goods owned by 
Germans will take place under their flags. 

It is, however, my duty to state with much emphasis 
that, under the existing conditions, the Dutch Government 
has no right to make such a declaration, for, as they under- 
stand their duties as neutrals, the exact fulfilment of them 
precludes their assuming any such obligation. 

Your excellency informed me, even before the publica- 
tion of the British Order-in-Council, that the interests of 
the Netherlands and their transoceanic possessions would 
receive careful attention. But, even so, and however mod- 
erate the application of the Order-in-Council may be, it 
is impossible for the Dutch Government to remain silent 
in the face of this serious infringement of the funda- 
mental principle of the law of nations, guaranteed by all 
the Powers for more than half a century. 

The most important part of this note is the realiza- 
tion of the Netherlands that neutrals have not only 
privileges but also obligations, and that it is their duty 
to insist upon their rights. This duty is threefold — 
first, to themselves, their self-respect, and their inter- 



The Rights and Duties of Neutrals 365 

ests; secondly, to the law of nations, which they are 
bound to uphold with all their strength ; and, thirdly, 
to their relations with the belligerents. 

Holland is completely at the mercy of England. She 
has no big navy to defend her communications with 
her colonies ; her army is small, and throwing her lot 
in with Germany would not greatly inconvenience 
England, who in that event would joy to possess her- 
self of the Dutch transoceanic properties. England 
promised her — actually by her responsible minister, 
and inferentially by Article 8 of the Order-in-Council 
— that she should not suffer in her own vital interests 
if she would connive in England's misdeeds and boy- 
cott Germany. Holland's privileges, in other words, 
were guaranteed. But with the courage that in such 
cases should distinguish every country, Holland de- 
clared that she could not do this and remain silent, in 
view of England's " serious infringement of the law 
of nations." And the reason why she could not keep 
silent is given earlier by her declaration that she had 
to protest in the interest of the law itself. 

This consideration does not seem to have occurred 
to Mr. Bryan at all. His gentle protest states the rights 
of America to trade with whom she pleases. Rights, 
however, may be waived when our sympathies make 
this desirable. Duties cannot be waived. If it is only 
the right of America to trade with Germany, nobody 
can find fault with the existing government if it is 
willing to surrender its rights, provided it correctly 
interprets the wishes of the people. If it is, however, 
the duty of every country to insist upon its rights, not 
only for the sake of its own self-respect and material 
prosperity, but also for the sake of the law itself and 



366 Germany's Point of View 

the obligations towards both parties of the contestants 
which its privileges as a neutral entail, then the protest 
must be made with the necessary resoluteness. 

In such a case it is immaterial where the sympathies 
of the individual citizens or officials are. Holland is 
reputed to be anything but pro-German, but she dared 
to give voice to her indignation in a way which by 
comparison will drive the blood of shame to the faces 
of those Americans who, when the war is over, will 
re-read Mr. Bryan's weak and irresolute note. ^ 

What has Mr. Bryan's assertion that England has 
always stood up before the world as a law-abiding 
nation to do with the case? Did he not write such 
flattering paragraphs to throw sand in the eyes of the 
American people? Or is he really ignorant of Eng- 
land's record? Would justice not have compelled him 
rather to quote the description of the British Govern- 
ment given by Jefferson in his letter to Thomas Leiper 
on June 12, 1815? — 

We concur in considering the Government of England 
as totally without morality, insolent beyond bearing, in- 
flated with vanity and ambition, aiming at the exclusive 
dominion of the seas, lost in corruption and deep-rooted 
hatred toward us, hostile to liberty wherever it endeavors 
to show its head, and the eternal disturber of the peace 
of the world. 

And should Mr. Bryan not have added to this pas- 
sage the remark that a careful search through history 
had failed to reveal any change of heart on the part 
of the British Government? China, India, Egypt, 
Africa, all attest that the ruthless spirit of official 
England has not changed. 

In reality, however, neither Mr. Bryan's false esti- 
mate of England nor England's historically true 



The Rights and Duties of Neutrals 367 

character have anything to do with the protest against 
the Order-in-Council which it was America's duty to 
make effective. Mr. Bryan is more of a Hterary man 
than a historian, and has confused the deeds of the 
British Government with the unquestionably sincere 
professions of EngHsh scholars and litterateurs. Such 
a mistake, however, is unpardonable in a man who is 
called upon to guide the destinies of his fellow citizens. 
It may, however, very appropriately be asked how 
America could have made her protest effective without 
threatening to go to war. The fates themselves have 
placed a peaceful, albeit most effective, weapon into 
her hands. All she had to do was to speak the one 
word, "Embargo." Holland had no such lever to 
enforce her protest. America had, but forebore to 
use it. Looked at solely from the American point of 
view, is there any reason why President Wilson's 
Government should not have said to England : 

You are breaking the fundamental principle of inter- 
national law. You command us to cease trading with Ger- 
many. You have forbidden us part of our trade, and while 
we do not wish to see in this a hostile act, we trust you 
too will see no hostility in our reply, which is, that we 
forbid you to trade with us, until you have rescinded your 
lawless Order-in-Council. 

Such a reply would have brought England to book 
immediately, for she and her allies are dependent on 
American food and munitions of war. An embargo 
on the latter, while strongly urged for months by the 
advocates of a strict American neutrality, has never 
been so necessary as it is at the present time. 

Whatever view may be taken of the wording of the 
note of protest presented by the German ambassador 
recently, nobody who stops to look at this question 



368 Germany's Point of View 

from the German point of view can deny that the 
Germans have cause for resentment. The editor of 
The Fatherland, April 21, 19 15, put the case succinctly 
thus: 

German men are willing to die from American bullets, 
so long as we do not aid England in starving their wives 
and their children. 

German women are willing to feel the pinch of starva- 
tion so long as we do not ship bullets to kill their men. 

But the German nation is justly indignant if we insist 
upon both murdering their men and starving their ^women 
and children. 

If America claims the right to ship munitions of 
war to the Allies, she has also the right to ship food 
to Germany. Munitions of war are contraband, and 
the precedent of centuries has given permission to 
that one of the belligerents who is the stronger on the 
sea to prevent them from reaching his opponent. Food 
for the civil populations is not contraband of war, and 
the precedent of generations, as well as the principles 
of humanity, which America has ever defended, for- 
bid interference with its shipment. America is faith- 
less to her principles if she does not insist upon her 
right, especially since in this, as in every other case, 
a right implies a duty. She would, therefore, be acting 
within her legitimate province if she declared an 
embargo on the exportation of foodstuffs to England 
so long as England prohibited similar shipments from 
reaching Germany. 

There can be no doubt that such a step would result 
in the immediate freedom of the sea, at least for non- 
contraband goods. Incidentally, it would also render 
the whole Belgian relief work unnecessary. Open the 
sea for the shipment of food, and Germany will be 



The Rights and Duties of Neutrals 369 

only too glad to buy all that is needed, not only for 
her own civilian population, but also for the inhabit- 
ants of Belgium and Poland, the two countries under 
German military occupation. 

Many Americans have blamed Germany for allowing 
outsiders to ship food to Belgium instead of feeding 
the people herself. A little thought should convince 
them that America and not Germany is to blame ; for 
if America had done her duty and had insisted upon 
her right to ship foodstuffs to whoever wished to buy 
any, there would not have been the scarcity in Europe 
which made Belgium dependent on charity. 

Nor should it be forgotten that Germany is in a 
state of amity with America, and that also for this 
reason it is the duty of America to refuse submission 
to England's infraction of international law by which 
she wished to starve Germany. 

America's own interests, too, are said to demand an 
embargo on the exportation of wheat. This position 
has been taken by Congressman Gallivan, of Boston, 
and other popular leaders who have watched with 
growing alarm the rise of the prices of wheat, flour, 
and bread. Should we starve our own people, they 
have said, for the sake of the madness of the European 
belligerents? The swollen profits of the inflated prices 
go into the pockets of a few speculators, with the 
exception of a certain rake-off which is diverted into 
the coffers of a group of pro-Ally bankers. The per- 
centage of these profits thus diverted has not been 
published, but it has been publicly asserted and 
printed, and has remained uncontradicted, that the 
banking house of J. P. Morgan & Company and his 
allies receive fifteen per cent of the purchase price 



370 Germany's Point of View 

of all munitions of war shipped from this country, 
to the Allies. J. P. Morgan, the father, wrecked the 
New Haven and the Boston & Maine railroads, while 
J. P. Morgan, the son, has set out, in his infatuation 
for England and the all-mighty dollar, to wreck not 
only the prosperity of what officially is still his coun- 
try, but also to strangle the good name of America 
among the nations. 

Is there an American so dull that he does not see 
the contempt which the weak submission of the 
American Government engenders among worth-while 
Britishers. A man who cheerfully connives in the 
breaking of the law, hoping thereby to benefit his 
friend, may win a curt "thank you," but loses the 
respect and consequently the friendship of the other, 
irretrievably. 

Where will America stand when this war is over? 
Despised by England and her allies, conscious of hav- 
ing deeply hurt Germany and Austria-Hungary, sus- 
pected by the whole world as always ready to propound 
noble principles but unwilling to insist upon their 
observation — a truly enviable reputation! But it is 
still time. In America the Government is more than 
anywhere else susceptible to the wishes of the people. 
Let the people speak, vociferously, unanimously ! Let 
them drop the pro-Ally and pro-German battle-cries, 
and let them see whether it is not possible even at this 
late hour to retrieve the honor of the nation. Honor 
without duty is impossible. The people should stop 
asking, "What may we do, what are our rights? " and 
ask instead, " What must we do, what are our duties ? " 
There should be no quibbling, no search through dusty 
books, no rejuvenation of antiquated laws. All they 



The Rights and Duties of Neutrals 371 

need is to look into their hearts like men, resolved not 
to be swayed by their sympathies, but to act according 
to their duty. Let America take a leaf from the 
courageous diplomacy of Holland; call a spade a 
spade ; and when she has truly understood the " in- 
fringement of the fundamental principle of the law 
of nations " of which England and her allies have 
been guilty, let her not connive in it ! 

Let her do something. Just what should be done must 
depend on the consensus of public opinion, uttered so 
unmistakably that our government will be forced 
to put it into execution. The most drastic means would 
be the complete cessation of commercial dealings with 
the Allies so long as the obnoxious Order-in-Council 
remained in force. Less comprehensive but possibly 
equally effective would be the embargo on certain 
commodities, either on munitions of war or on 
foodstuffs. 

There are many arguments in favor of forbidding 
the exportation of arms, which in itself appears to 
most people to be a singularly nefarious traffic and 
one which will leave scars long after the war in the 
memories of those whose friends and relatives have 
been murdered by American bullets. 

The high price of wheat speaks loudest in favor of 
an embargo on the exportation of grain. Few people 
realize to what extent this country has been drained 
of this necessity. According to Bradstreet's of Feb- 
ruary 2y, 191 5, the British importation of wheat from 
American and Canadian ports from January 14 to 
February 25, 1915, was as follows, compared with the 
same period in 19 14 : 



372 Germany's Point of View 

Million Bushels of 
Wheat 

Week Ending — 191S. 1914. 

Jan. 21 8.3 3.8 

" 28 8.6 2,.7 

Feb. 4 9.8 Z'7 

" 10 9.7 4.0 

" 18 10.2 3.1 

" 25 7.2, 2.9 

Together 53.9 21.2 

In six weeks, therefore, the English importation of 
wheat grew 32,700,000 bushels over the importation 
during the corresponding six weeks last year. Can 
any thoughtful American, interested in the welfare of 
his country, view these figures without alarm? When 
Congressman Gallivan first announced, months ago, 
that an embargo should be laid on the exportation of 
wheat, many people were inclined to ridicule his idea. 
Today there are thousands who believe that the needs 
of our own people render this step obligatory. 

The above table is interesting also from another 
point of view. It shows the effect of the German sub- 
marine blockade, which began on February 18, and 
resulted in a decrease in importation of almost three 
million bushels, or the approximate equivalent of the 
average weekly importation in times of peace. 

If, however, neither a complete cessation of com- 
mercial dealings with England nor the declaration of 
an embargo on the exportation of either the munitions 
of war or wheat seems desirable, America has another 
means by which she can uphold the law so far as she 
is concerned. She can declare that she refuses to 
submit to the British Order-in-Council and that she 
will continue to trade with Germany. Such a decla- 



The Rights and Duties of Neutrals 373 

ration will, however, only be respected if America 
announces that she will send convoys with the ships 
bound for Germany. This will settle once for all the 
question, "Is the high sea free, or is it not?" 

For more than one hundred years America has 
proclaimed this principle. Does she mean it ? In 1907, 
at the second Hague Conference, the principle was 
accepted by twenty-one votes against eleven, Germany, 
Austria, and Italy giving their strong support to 
America, while France, Russia, and Japan rallied to 
America's opponent, England. When the victory was 
won by a majority of almost two to one, the American 
delegate broke faith with his country and those who 
had supported him, and withdrew his motion, out of 
love for England. 

And today the supreme test has come. America 
can win respect for the principle proclaimed as true 
by her leading men ever since the nation was born. 
She can show whether she means what she has so often 
said, that the high sea shall be free to all. Will she 
do so, or will she turn traitor to her own principles, 
for the love of England ? 

Perhaps it is not quite true to say " for the love of 
England," for while such sentiments may have swayed 
Mr. Bryan himself, the great masses of the people are 
deterred from action not so much by love of England 
as by the feeling that no action should be taken that 
could, even in the remotest degree, advance the Ger- 
man chances of victory. Germany is still believed by 
many to be fighting an unrighteous war, and her 
success, therefore, to represent the conquest of wrong 
over right. 

England knew this, and that is why she cut the 



374 Germany's Point of View 

cables and got a start of more than a fortnight in her 
campaign of Hes and viHfication. 

There are today official records on file in the State 
Department in Washington which exonerate Germany 
from the charge of having committed atrocities in 
Belgium. If they were published, the bottom would 
be knocked out from the anti-German propaganda. 
No American paper would dare to print any more of 
the dastardly lies besmirching the honor of Germany. 

There are admirals in the navy and officers in the 
army whose mouths are sealed, but who know that 
no nation facing the conditions like those met by 
Germany in Belgium would have shown the forbear- 
ance that Germany exhibited. 

There are official reports in the files of the several 
departments in Washington which relate the marvel- 
ous success of Germany's reconstruction of Belgium. 
Thousands of women and children have been freed 
from the slavery in the mines, and some of the German 
welfare legislation has been introduced. The school 
system has been improved and all children have been 
forced to attend school. This will wipe out the terrible 
illiteracy still prevalent in the country. The census of 
1910 revealed that of every one thousand people over 
fifty-five years of age, only six hundred and eighty-nine 
could read and write. And that in the richest little 
country of the world ! All this will be changed in the 
future, for even though Germany evacuate the country- 
no government will be able to send the little children 
to the mines again instead of to the schools, and will 
dare to deprive the laborers in their old age and in 
sickness of the pensions granted them by Germany. 

These are facts, but America does not know them; 



The Rights and Duties of Neutrals 375 

The voices of individuals are helpless, but when the 
people as a whole demand it the President cannot 
refuse. Let the people rise and demand the truth that 
their officials are keeping from them ! Let them force 
the publication of the official documents, let them 
request the President to unseal the lips of those officers 
who know the truth. 

But it is argued : " We know the truth. We have 
read everything. We know who started the war. Our 
minds are made up." This was the belief also of many 
Englishmen, who yet have changed their views. How 
many Americans know that at two recent meetings of 
the tutors of Oxford University these words were 
spoken : " One thing we must insist on over here is 
that this sinister liar, Grey, who forever has peace on 
his lips, and war in his heart, should go" ? And again 
the prophecy that before long Sir Edward Grey would 
be tried for high treason, because of his lies to the 
Cabinet and Parliament, and that the English people 
will " send him to the gallows " ? When such words 
can fall from the lips of a scholar like Dr. Frederic 
Cornwallis Conybeare, there may be some truth hidden 
v/hich also Americans have not yet found. " In 
August and September and October," Dr. Conybeare 
says, 

I felt so sure that England had all the right on her side 
and Germany all the wrong that I hardly troubled to read 
the diplomatic documents. 

His awakening began in November. It is never too 
late to seek the truth. And to refuse to ask for the 
publication of the official documents in Washington 
because one's mind is made up is un-American. 



376 Germany's Point of View 

There is, however, another objection. People say, 
" We do not care much for official reports ; what our 
friends have seen and told us counts for more. They 
have seen the poor victims of German atrocity in 
Belgium, and that is enough for us." 

So far as Boston is concerned there are hundreds 
of people who were informed by Mr. William Firth 
that his daughter, Mrs. Haworth, had seen little Bel- 
gian " children, one with one hand off, and some have 
had both cut off." After the publication of the British 
official report that no such cases existed in England,* 
Mr. Firth has been forced to acknowledge that he and 
his daughter were wrong and that she had not seen 
any such cases. The writer has in his possession the 
proof of Mr. Firth's first assertion and also of his 
subsequent confession. The latter is several weeks 
old, but Mr. Firth has not yet seen fit to publish his 
denial. In this connection, and as an indication of the 
fact that Belgium, except in a few districts, is not 
nearly so badly off as America has been made to 
believe, it is interesting to note that Mr. Firth's 
collections no longer go exclusively to Belgium. 

It is, of course, impossible at this distance to dis- 
prove every slanderous story about Germany, but a 
sufficient number of sworn affidavits is available to 
impair the credibility of all such accounts. 

England knew what she was about when she ma- 
ligned the Germans, their aims, and their conduct of 
the war, for just so long as the Germans would 
appear to the Americans to be doers of evil and wish- 
ers of ill, just so long she knew that the American 
sense of justice would prevent America from doing 

* See New York World, January 28, 1915. 



The Rights and Duties of Neutrals 2^77 

her duty at this momentous juncture of the world's 
history. 

Everything hinges on the truth. Germany alone of 
all the contestants is not afraid of the truth. English, 
French, Greek, American, and other papers are as 
freely sold and read in Berlin today as ever. The 
Government is not afraid to let the people read the 
false battle reports and accounts of home affairs pub- 
lished anywhere in the world, because the people know 
the truth. 

This has also been the glorious inspiration of those 
whose faith in Germany has never wavered, and espe- 
cially of those who at the same time have been swayed 
by faith in the sense of justice inherent in America. 
These people have spoken, not because Germany 
needed any defence, but because America needed in- 
formation. A public opinion which is based on false- 
hoods may ruin a nation. And all Americans wish to 
see their country thrive. 



CHAPTER XXIX 

HOW ENGLAND AND FRANCE WAGE WAR 

DURING the American War of Independence the 
English Government offered rewards of eight 
dollars each for the scalps of white Americans. And 
in 1782 the governor of Canada is said to have re- 
ceived 1,062 such scalps delivered to him. Most 
American textbooks suppress this sanguinary fact, and 
few people seem to find the time to read larger his- 
tories. These figures are quoted from England and 
the Peoples of the World, by Paul Dehn and Albert 
Zimmermann, Part I, page 5. But greater details of 
the English-Indian agreement are conveniently gath- 
ered in The Pictorial Field Book of the Revolution, 
by Benson J. Lossing, Harper & Brother, i860, and 
in Frank Moore's Diary of the Revolution. Stone's 
Life of Brant, the Indian chieftain, and the Life of 
Mary Jennison, published by James D. Bemis in 1823, 
are also illuminating. 

Moore's Diary contains contemporary records of 
events, and volume II, page 75, under date of July 4, 
1778, states that the enemy, consisting of 1,300 Tories 
and about 300 Indians, delivered 196 scalps. A little 
further the following account is given of how the 
English and their Indian allies treated their prisoners : 

They stripped Captain Bedlock, tied him to a tree, and 
stuck him full of sharp splinters of pine knots. Then 
piling a heap of pine knots round him, they set all on fire; 

378 



How England and France Wage War 379 

put Durpee and Ranson into the fire and held them down 
with pitchforks. 

An account of a scalping party of 1781 is thus de- 
scribed, volume II, page 420: 

The men . . . fell a sacrifice to savage Indians and 
Tories and experienced that torture in death which noth- 
ing but British and savage cruelty could inflict. 

It was this unholy alliance between the English and 
the colored savages which greatly incensed the fathers 
of the Revolution and induced them to give it as one 
of their reasons why America henceforth could have 
no connection with England. The Declaration of 
Independence says: 

[The King of England] has endeavored to bring on the 
inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian Savages 
whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished de- 
struction of all ages, sexes, and conditions. 

The same rule of warfare is characteristic of the 
Gourkas and other savage tribes whom England is 
today employing in her fight against her own kinsmen. 
How can Americans, except those who no longer 
understand the spirit of the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, condone this barbarous English custom? And 
especially in Boston, where the memory of the English 
cruelty should not be forgotten, for the invitation ex- 
tended to the Indians by the representatives of the 
British Government was couched in these terms : That 
they should assemble "to eat the flesh and drink the 
blood of a Bostonian." After the conference, in which 
the Indians had promised to war on the Americans, 

to each Indian were then presented a brass kettle, a suit 
of clothes, a gun, a tomahawk and scalping knife, a piece 



380 Germany's Point of View 

of gold, a quantity of ammunition, and a promise of a 
bounty upon every scalp he should bring in.* 

This was one hundred and thirty-three years ago, 
and since then the manners of men have softened. 
The British Government, too, would consider it be- 
neath its dignity today to buy the scalp of an enemy 
for eight dollars. Human life has risen in value, and, 
as the letter from English Minister Findlay, printed 
below, indicates, £5,000 is the current price for the 
head of an enemy. 

British Legation 
Christiania 
Norway 
On behalf of the British Government I promise that if, 
through information given by Adler Christensen, Sir Roger 
Casement be captured either with or without his com- 
panions, the said Adler Christensen is to receive from the 
British Government the sum of £5,000, to be paid as he 
may desire. 

Adler Christensen is also to enjoy personal immunity 
and to be given a passage to the United States, should 
he desire it. 

M. DE C. Findlay, 

H. B. M. Minister. 

Sir Roger Casement, whom his servant was asked 
to sell at this figure, has exposed the whole plot in a 
letter addressed to Sir Edward Grey. The letter reads 
as follows: 

Berlin, ist February, 1915. 
The Right Honourable Sir E. Grey, Bart, K. G, M. P., 
London : 

Sir — I observe that some discussion has taken place in 
the House of Lords on the subject of the pension I volun- 
tarily ceased to draw when I set out to learn what might 
be the intentions of the German Government in regard to 
Ireland. 



* See Life of Mary Jennison. 



How England and France Wage War 381 

In the course of that discussion I understand Lord 
Crewe observed that " Sir Roger Casement's action 
merited a sensible punishment." 

The question raised thus as to my action and your pub- 
licly suggested punishment of same, I propose discussing 
here and now, since the final proof of the actual punish- 
ment you sought in secret to inflict upon me is, at length, 
in my possession. 

It is true I was aware of your intention from the first 
day I set foot in Norway three months ago; but it has 
taken time to compel your agent there to furnish the writ- 
ten proof of the conspiracy then set on foot against me 
by his majesty's Government. Let me first briefly define 
my action, before proceeding to contrast it with your own. 

The question between the British Government and my- 
self has never been, as you are fully aware, a matter of 
a pension, of a reward, a decoration. 

I served the British Government faithfully and loyally 
as long as it was possible for me to do so, and when it 
became impossible, I resigned. When later it became im- 
possible for me to use the pension assigned me by law I 
voluntarily abandoned that income as I had previously re- 
signed the post from which it was derived, and as I now 
proceed to divest myself of the honours and distinctions 
that at various times have been conferred upon me by his 
majesty's Government. 

I came to Europe from the United States last October, 
ifti order to make sure that whatever might be the course 
of this war, my own country, Ireland, should suffer from 
it the minimum of harm. 

The view I held was made sufficiently clear in an open 
letter I wrote on the 17th September last in New York, 
and sent to Ireland for public distribution among my coun- 
trymen. I append a printed copy of that letter. It defines 
my personal standpoint clearly enough and expresses the 
views I held, and hold, on an Irishman's duty to his coun- 
try in this crisis of world affairs. Soon after writing 
that letter I set out for Europe. 

To save Ireland from some of the calamities of war was 
worth the loss to myself of pension and honours and was 
even worth the commission of an act of technical 
" treason." 

I decided to take all the risks and to accept all the pen- 
alties the law might attach to my action. I did not, how- 



382 Germany's Point of View 

ever, bargain for risks and penalties that lay outside the 
law as far as my own action lay outside the field of moral 
turpitude. 

In other words, while I reckoned with British law and 
legal penalties and accepted the sacrifice of income, posi- 
tion, and reputation as prices I must pay, I did not reckon 
with the British Government. 

I was prepared to face charges in a court of law; I 
was not prepared to meet waylaying, kidnapping, suborning 
of dependents or " knocking on the head" — in fine, all 
the expedients your representative in a neutral country 
invoked when he became aware of my presence there. 

For the criminal conspiracy that Mr. M. de C. Eindlay, 
H. B. M. Minister to the Court of Norway, entered into 
on the 30th October last, in the British Legation at 
Christiania, with the Norwegian subject, my dependent, 
Evind Adler Christensen, involved all these things and 
more. It involved not merely a lawless attack upon my- 
self, for which the British minister promised my follower 
the sum of £5,000, but it involved a breach of international 
law as well as of common law, for which the British min- 
ister in Norway promised this Norwegian subject full im- 
munity. 

On the 29th October, last year, I landed at Christiania, 
coming from America. 

Within a few hours of my landing the man I had en- 
gaged and in whom I reposed trust, was accosted by one 
of the secret service agents of the British minister and 
carried off, in a private motor car, to the British Lega- 
tion, when the first attempt was made on his honour to 
induce him to be false to me. 

Your agent in the legation that afternoon professed 
ignorance of who I was and sought, as he put it, merely 
to find out my identity and movements. 

Failing in this, the first attempt to obtain satisfaction, 
Adler Christensen was assailed the next day, the 30th 
October, by a fresh agent and received an invitation to 
again visit the British Legation, " where he would hear 
something good." 

This, the second interview, held in the early forenoon, 
was with the minister himself. 

Mr. Findlay came quickly to the point. The ignorance, 
assumed or actual, of the previous day, as to my identity, 
was now discarded. He confessed that he knew me, but 



How England and France Wage War 383 

that he did not know where I was going to, what I in- 
tended doing, or what might be the specific end I had in 
view. 

It was enough for him that I was an Irish Nationalist. 

He admitted that the British Government had no evi- 
dence of anything wrong done, or contemplated by me, 
that empowered them either morally or lawfully to inter- 
fere with my movements. But he was bent on doing so. 
Therefore, he boldly invoked lawless methods, and sug- 
gested to my dependent that were I to " disappear " it 
would be " a very good thing for whoever brought it 
about." 

He was careful to point out that nothing could happen 
to the perpetrator of the crime, since my presence in 
Christiania was known only to the British Government, 
and that Government would screen and provide for those 
responsible for my " disappearance." 

He indicated quite plainly the method to be employed, 
by assuring Adler Christensen that whoever " knocked 
him on the head need not do any work for the rest of his 
life " and proceeded to apply the moral by asking Christen- 
sen : " I suppose you would not mind having an easy time 
of it for the rest of your days? " 

My faithful follower concealed the anger he felt at 
this suggestion and continued the conversation in order to 
become more fully aware of the plot that might be devised 
against my safety. He pointed out that I had not only 
been very kind to him but that I " trusted him inplicitly." 

It was on this " implicit trust " Mr. Findlay then pro- 
ceeded to build the whole framework of his conspiracy 
against my life, my liberty, the public law of Norway, and 
the happiness of the young man he sought to tempt by 
monstrous bribes to the commission of a dastardly crime 
against his admitted benefactor. 

If I could be intercepted, cut off, " disappear," no one 
would know and no question could be asked, since there 
was no Government save the British Government knew of 
my presence in Norway and there was no authority I 
could appeal to for help, while that Government would 
shield the individual implicated and provide handsomely 
for his future. Such, in Mr. Findlay's words (recorded 
by me) was the proposition put by his majesty's minister 
before the young man who had been enticed for this pur- 
pose into the British Legation. 



384 Germany's Point of View 

That this man was faithful to me and the law of 
his country, was a triumph of Norwegian integrity over 
the ignoble inducement proffered him by the richest and 
most powerful Government in the world to be false to 
both. 

Having thus outlined his project, Mr. Findlay invited 
Christensen to " think the matter over and return at three 
o'clock if you are disposed to go on with it." 

He handed him in Norwegian paper money twenty-five 
Kroner "just to pay your taxi-cab fares," and dismissed 
him. 

Feeling a not unnatural interest in these proposals as 
to how I should be disposed of, I instructed the jnan it 
was thus sought to bribe, to return to the British Legation 
at three o'clock and to seemingly fall in with the wishes 
of your envoy extraordinary. 

I advised him, however, for the sake of appearances, to 
" sell me dear " and to secure the promise of a very re- 
spectable sum for so very disreputable an act, 

Christensen, who has been a sailor and naturally has 
seen some strange company, assured me he was perfectly 
at home with his majesty's representative. 

He returned to the legation at three o'clock and remained 
closeted with Mr. Findlay until nearly 5 P. M. The full 
record of their conversation will be laid before you, and 
others, in due course. 

My follower pretended to fall in with the British min- 
ister's projects, only stipulating for a good sum to be paid 
in return for his treachery. Mr. Findlay promised in his 
"word of honour" (such was the quaint phraseology em- 
ployed to guarantee this transaction), that Christensen 
should receive £5,000 whenever he could deliver me into 
the hands of the British authorities. 

H in the course of this kidnaping process I should come 
to harm or personal injury be done me, then no question 
would be asked and full immunity guaranteed the kid- 
naper. 

My follower pointed out that as I was leaving that even- 
ing for Copenhagen, having already booked my compart- 
ment in the mail train, he would not have any immediate 
chance of executing the commission. 

Mr. Findlay agreed that it would be necessary to defer 
the attempt until some favorable opportunity offered of 
decoying me down to the coast " anywhere on the 



How England and France Wage War 385 

Skagerack or North Sea," where British warships might 
be in waiting to seize me. 

He entrusted my dependent with the further commis- 
sion of purloining my correspondence with my supposed 
associates in America and Ireland, particularly in Ireland, 
so that they, too, might participate in the "sensible pun- 
ishment" being devised for me. 

He ordained a system of secret correspondence with 
himself Christensen should employ, and wrote out the 
confidential address in Christiania to which he was to 
communicate the results of his efforts to purloin my papers 
and to report on my plans. 

This address in Christiania was written down by Mr. 
Findlay on a halfsheet of legation notepaper in printed 
characters. This precaution was adopted, he said, " so 
as to prevent the handwriting being traced." 

This document, along with one hundred crowns in Nor- 
wegian paper money given by Mr. Findlay as an earnest 
of more to follow was at once brought to me with an 
account of the proceedings. 

As I was clearly in a position of some danger, I 
changed my plans and instead of proceeding to Copen- 
hagen, as I had intended doing, I decided to alter my 
procedure and route. 

It was then, with this secret knowledge of the full 
extent of the crime plotted by your representative in Nor- 
way against me, that I left Christiania on the 30th 
October. 

The rest of the story need not take so long in the telling. 

You are fully aware of most of the details, as you were 
in constant touch with your agent both by cable and 
despatch. 

You are also aware of the declaration of the Imperial 
German Government, issued on 20th November last, in 
reply to the inquiry I addressed to them. 

The British Government, both by press reports and by 
direct agents, had charged Germany, throughout the length 
and breadth of Ireland, with the commission of atrocious 
crimes in Belgium and had warned the Irish people that 
their fate would be the same, did Germany win this war. 

Your Government sought to frighten Irishmen into a 
predatory raid upon a people who had never injured them 
and to persuade them by false charges that this was their 
duty. 



386 Germany's Point of View 

I sought not only a guarantee of German goodwill to 
Ireland, but to relieve my countrymen from the appre- 
hension this campaign of calumny was designed to pro- 
voke and so far as was possible to dissuade them from 
embarking in an immoral conflict against a people who 
had never wronged Ireland. That declaration of the Ger- 
man Government, issued, as I know, in all sincerity, is the 
justification for my treason. The justification of the con- 
spiracy of the British Government and its minister at 
Christiania, begun before I had set foot on German soil, 
in a country where I had a perfect right to be and con- 
ducted by means of the lowest forms of attempted bribery 
and corruption, I leave you, sir, to discover. . ^ 

You will not discover it in the many interviews Mr. 
Findlay had, during the months of November and Decem- 
ber last, at his own seeking, with my faithful follower. 
The correspondence between them, in the cypher the min- 
ister had arranged tells its own story. 

These interviews furnished matter which in due course 
I shall make public. What passed between your agent 
and mine on these occasions you are fully aware of, 
for you were the directing power throughout the whole 
proceeding. 

Your object, as Mr. Findlay frankly avowed to the man 
he thought he had bought, was to take my life with public 
indignity — mine was to expose your design and to do so 
through the very agent you had yourselves singled out for 
the purpose and had sought to corrupt to an act of singular 
infamy. 

On one occasion, in response to my follower's pretended 
dissatisfaction with the amount offered for betraying me, 
you authorized your agent to increase the sum to £10,000. 
I have a full record of the conversations held and of 
the pledges proffered in your name. 

On two occasions, during these prolonged bargainings, 
your minister gave Adler Christensen gifts of " earnest 
money." Once it was five hundred crowns in Norwegian 
currency; the next time a similar sum, partly in Nor- 
wegian money and partly in English gold. On one of 
these occasions, to be precise, on the 7th December last, 
Mr. Findlay handed Adler Christensen the key of the back 
entrance of the British Legation, so that he might go and 
come unobserved and at all hours. 

I propose returning this key in person to the donor and 



How England and France Wage War 387 

along with it the various sums so anxiously bestowed upon 
my follower. 

The stories told Mr. Findlay at these interviews should 
not have deceived a schoolboy. All the pretended evi- 
dence of my plans and intentions Adler Christensen pro- 
duced, the bogus letters, fictitious maps and charts and 
other incitements to Mr. Findlay's appetite for the in- 
credible were part of my necessary plan of self-defense 
to lay bare the conspiracy you were engaged in and to 
secure that convincing proof of it I now hold. 

It was not until the 3d ultimo that Mr. Findlay com- 
mitted himself to give my protector the duly signed and 
formal pledge of reward and immunity, in the name of 
the British Government, for the crime he was being in- 
stigated to commit, that is row in my possession. 

I transmit you herewith a photograph of this document. 

At a date compatible with my own security against the 
clandestine guarantees and immunities of the British min- 
ister in Norway, I shall proceed to lay before the legitimate 
authorities in that country the original document and the 
evidence in my possession that throws light on the pro- 
ceedings of his majesty's Government. 

To that Government, through you, sir, I now beg to 
return the insignia of the Most Distinguished Order of St. 
Michael and St. George, the Coronation Medal of his 
majesty King George v.^ and any other medal, honour or 
distinction conferred upon me by his majesty's Govern- 
ment, of which it is possible for me to divest myself. 

I am, sir, your most obedient, humble servent, 

(Signed) Roger Casement. 

This chapter of British dealings with those whom 
their Government fears, deserves to be placed in his- 
tory by the side of the 1,062 scalps of white Americans 
delivered to the governor of Canada in 1782. Posterity 
will, no doubt, pass judgment on the instigator of this 
attempted murder, Sir Edward Grey, and on his tool, 
his majesty's minister, Mr. Findlay; while the defend- 
ers of England in the present war, who have claimed 
that Sir Edward Grey stood for humanity and justice, 
will need some time to think matters over. 



388 Germany's Point of View 

The same advice may -be given to those who have 
condemned the Germans for their reported use of 
asphyxiating bombs in recent days. It has been touch- 
ing to read the indignation of the editorial writers 
since the German success near Ypres and to compare 
their present volubiHty with their silence in September, 
and whenever since the use of asphyxiating bombs by 
the French has been reported. Lest it appear that 
such reports had emanated from German sources, it 
may be well to quote a few paragraphs from the Pall 
Mall Gazette, London, September 16, 1914, page three, 
column five. The article begins : 

DEALERS OF DEATH 

The Secret of French " Hell-Producers " 

" TURPINITE " 

Shells That Paralyse Organs of the Body 
Mr. A. A. Roberts, the well-known analytical chemist, 
writes to the Pall Mall Gazette: An evening paper of 
Thursday last is responsible for the following : " One 
wonders what kind of shells the French must have been 
using to cause a regiment of German infantry to die in 
their trenches standing bolt upright, and still holding their 
rifles in firing attitude? 

" There is no longer necessity for further preserving 
privacy, as to that which is an open secret, for not during 
this colossal struggle could the enemy hope to exercise 
its clever imitative propensities in the direction of 
* Turpinite.' 

"The manufacture of this latest hell producer gave the 
French authorities at much food for reflection." 

The article then goes on to state that these bombs 
bring *' death to every living thing within its reach," 
because they produce " complete paralysis of certain 
organs of the body." 

The French have used such asphyxiating bombs ever 
since, and the Germans have complained over and over 



How England and France Wage War 389 

again, and sent their proofs ; and the State Depart- 
ment in Washington has quietly pigeon-holed them 
and the press has refused to arouse the moral indig- 
nation of the country against this glaring infraction 
of the stipulations of the Hague Convention. 

Only last week Germany announced that she might 
be forced to take recriminatory measures if the French 
continued to use asphyxiating bombs. 

If, therefore, the patience of the Germans broke at 
last, and they had recourse to such bombs — which as 
yet is not proved — they are free from guilt. 

English " murder-conspiracies " and French " hell- 
producers !" The time will come when every honest 
American will turn from such manifestations of " hu- 
manity" and when he will call to account the men 
whose suppression of all official accounts on the con- 
duct of the war has prevented American public opin- 
ion from exciting its tremendous moral weight for 
righteousness in the world. 

Truth is always right, and to suppress it for fear 
of being unneutral because it might help Germany 
is a course which will find its condemnation — in the 
next generation at any rate! 



CHAPTER XXX 



SIR EDWARD GREY 



WHEN Sir Edward Grey authorized the British 
minister to Norway to set a price of £5,000 
on the head of Sir Roger Casement he followed a 
precedent from the American War of Independence, 
for the English Government offered at that time to 
pay to the Indians a stated price for every scalp of 
an American. 

It is useless to claim in extenuation of such English 
behavior that it conformed to the spirit of the times ; 
for this would be a slander on Washington and the 
other leaders of the Revolution. Nor is it possible 
to say that the English have altered their methods 
since, because they have shown the same ruthlessness 
wherever they have fought during the intervening one 
hundred and thirty or forty years. Their own writers 
confess this, and every page of their military history 
— in China, India, Egypt, and the Transvaal — is filled 
with such inhumanity that it has to be expurgated for 
school use. 

During all this time, however, England has pro- 
duced so many splendid specimens of humanity that 
the world at large has been led to believe that they 
and not their cruel officials represent the real England. 
And so they do, but unfortunately they have never 
been able to force their own government to apply the 
high principles of humanity which they themselves 

390 



^'^V Edward Grey 391 

are preaching. Lossing put his finger on the right 
spot when he said,* speaking of the price the English 
commanders placed on the scalps of Americans : 

Their feelings of humanity doubtless revolted when 
coalescing with the savages of the forest to butcher their 
brethren, but with them principle too often yielded to 
expediency. 

This has been the English failing right along. Eng- 
lishmen have professed greater perfection and con- 
doned more imperfection in their public men than any 
other people in the world, because with them political 
morality has meant success. 

Sir Edward Grey is the man who has led England 
into this war. He has claimed to have done it for the 
sake of honor after all his endeavors to preserve the 
peace had failed. Sir Edward Grey has been believed. 
Does he deserve it? Has he spoken the truth? Are 
his documents honest? Or has with him, too, prin- 
ciple yielded to expediency? These are momentous 
questions, for if it should be found that his words 
were false and some of the documents of his Blue 
Book forged, a revaluation of the causes of the people 
at war will become necessary. 

Ever since the publication of the French Yellow 
Book, doubts in the trustworthiness of Sir Edward 
Grey have appeared, for the French and the English 
sources of information were often incompatible with 
each other. This led to a systematic study of Sir 
Edward's evidence, the results of which are now ready 
for publication. 

Entirely independent of these investigations, an 
English scholar. Dr. Frederic Cornwallis Conybeare, 

"^ The -Pictorial Field Book of the Revolution, Vol I, p. 235. 



392 Germany's Point of View 

of Oxford University, has studied the records avail- 
able to him, which were not so many as were ob- 
tainable in America, and has summed up his conclu- 
sions in a letter to an American friend who gave per- 
mission for its publication in the Vital Issue, New 
York, April 17, 191 5. 

The editor of the Vital Issue personally vouches 
for the genuineness of the letter and has published 
a facsimile of three pages of it, written in Dr. Cony- 
beare's own hand, in the Vital Issue of April 24. 

The letter reads as follows: 

Oxford, March 5, '15. 

My Dear — Many thanks for your last letter. I will 
come to that presently, for your own attitude and the 
treatment of the Poles in Prussia and much else we have 
written to each other about are things on the fringe of 
the vital questions I want to treat of in this letter. I feel 
that I owe it to you to write this, for I know that you 
will understand my feelings. In August and September 
and October I felt so sure that England had all the right 
on her side and Germany all the wrong, that I hardly 
troubled to read the diplomatic documents given in the 
English, German, French, and Russian books. 

At the beginning of October my attention was first 
drawn to the emperor's correspondence with the Czar, and 
I realized then that he had made a sincere effort for peace 
in the days of July 28-31, and you perhaps saw my ac- 
knowledgment of the same in the Nezv York Nation. I am 
not the man to see clearly a point in favor of the enemy 
and to conceal it. 

Next I got M. P. Price's Diplomatic History of the War, 
which gives all the diplomatic despatches, and correlates 
them with one another and with contemporary events so 
far as these were ascertainable from Reuter's telegrams, 
newspaper correspondents abroad, etc. The book is tem- 
perately written, without bias or flag-waving, and I com- 
mend it to your notice. The points that are driven into 
me by a perusal of it and of all the documents are these: 

I. That in the days 23-28 July, Berlin made a great 
mistake in not obliging Franz Joseph to withdraw, or 



Sir Edward Grey 393 

rather moderate, his note to Servia. I quite realize what 
a testy, obstinate, autoritaire, and somewhat senile old 
gentlemen your foreign office had to deal with in him, and 
I know how mistaken our press is in supposing that he 
consults Berlin before he acts. On this occasion he took 
the bit in his teeth, probably aided by that arch-oppressor, 
the Magyar Tisza. On the other hand, I recognize the 
provocation under which Austria was. The murdered 
Grandduke was a sensible fellow, whose ambition, I be- 
lieve, was to conciliate the small Slav nations of Austria- 
Hungary. He would have grouped the Slovaks with 
Moravia and Bohemia and have been crowned their King 
at Prague. He would also have grouped Bosnia and 
Herzegovina with Croatia, and have been crowned at 
Agram, The dual monarchy would thus have become a 
quadruple one. The Germans in Hungary would, as far as 
possible, have been like other nationalities rescued from 
the Magyar and incorporated with Vienna. Roumania 
v/ould have been drawn inside the Austrian Bund and the 
Roumanians of Hungary added to her. She could not have 
continued to stand alone, and as her trade with Germany 
is great, and her natural antipathy to Russia equally great, 
she would have formed a permanent alliance with the 
great group system on her western side. Just because he 
was a constructive statesman, the Archduke was murdered, 
for his accession to the throne would have been the death 
knell of Pan-Slav ambitions in Austria-Hungary, Pos- 
sibly Bulgaria and Servia would have joined on same 
terms. If Germany wins in this war she will, I hope, con- 
strain Austria-Hungary to reform themselves in some such 
way as I have sketched out, for it is vital to Germany to 
keep Austria-Hungary together, and to keep her together 
you must put the Magyar into his place. If she wins she 
will also have to group Polish Galicia and Russian Poland 
and East Posen together and give them some home rule 
show of their own ; the Poles are so thoroughly Latinized 
that their sympathies would always lie with Vienna and 
South Germany, rather than with Russia. The German 
Empire on the west of this great congeries would act as 
a centre of gravity to it, and I am not sure that the whole 
might not have been drawn into the German customs 
union. It is then, in my opinion, a terrible pity the Arch- 
duke was murdered, certainly if my idea of his policy is 
correct. 



394 Germany's Point of View 

2. Sir Edward Grey had, behind our backs, mortgaged 
our fleet, our only serious arm, to France unconditionally. 
I believe only Asquith and two or three other members 
of the cabinet were in this secret. The public knew, in a 
vague way, of the Triple Entente, but no one suspected 
that Grey's diplomacy had left us no choice of our quar- 
rels, and that we were, by it, as much lashed to Russia's 
chariot wheels as France. 

3. In spite of the affinity of Servian language and re- 
ligion to Russia, I do not believe Petersburgh cared for 
Servia, save as a lever with which to disintegrate Austria. 
Bulgaria is as close to Russia in these ways, yet was 
cynically sacrificed by Russia after the war with Turkey, 
partly because she came out of it stronger than Russia 
liked, and partly because she did not serve so well as a 
lever against Austria. To go a step further back, Austria 
courted risk in this danger in 1908 by not getting consent 
of signatory powers of Berlin treaty of 1878, before she 
threw off the suzerainty of Turkey, and the Kaiser, like 
a foolish fellow, went and crowed over Russia when she 
had climbed down in a case where for once she was not 
wrong. 

4. When the crisis began on July 24, Sazonof and Cam- 
bon at once set to work to drag Grey by his heels into 
" complete solidarity " with Russia and France in the com- 
ing conflict. Had Grey only followed the advice of 
Buchanan, our ambassador in Russia, we would not have 
gone in, for the latter told Sazonof straight out that 
" England's interests in Servia were nil, and a war on 
behalf of that country would never be sanctioned by British 
public opinion." Instead of adhering to this advice, sen- 
sible in itself and truly reflecting the feelings of most of 
our cabinet, of our Parliament and electorate. Grey set 
himself to follow Sazonof, who has had him in his waist- 
coat pocket for a long time past. I gave him credit for 
having wanted peace, but Sazonof worked on this side of 
him and got him to believe that Germany would back 
down if he assured Lichnowsky (as he did on July 29, see 
White Book, 89) that England, if the war spread, would 
go in with France and Russia. The stupid ass could not 
see that Sazonof, once assured of English support, of Eng- 
lish money and fleet, would steam straight ahead and set 
himself to provoke the Kaiser to declare war. Thus, in- 



Sir Edward Grey 395 

stead of securing peace as he hoped, he took the very Hne 
that must lead to war. 

5. Germany was quite ready to take on France and 
■ Russia if they gave her a chance, but did not want to take 

on us as well ; and that is why Bethmann-Hollweg, on the 
afternoon of July 29, as soon as he heard of the hostile 
attitude Grey had taken up to Lichnowsky (see our White 
Book, 89) sent in hot haste to Goschen at 11 P. M. to make 
a bid for our neutrality {White Book, 85), and the same 
night at 2 A. M. to Sazonof (ibid. 97). That Count 
Pourtales, a man whom, from all I have read about him, 
I should dearly like to meet, " completely broke down " in 
this interview and " appealed to Sazonof to make some 
suggestion which he could telegraph to the German Gov- 
ernment as a last hope," proves how anxious Germany was 
to keep the peace at this time. But Sazonof already knew 
from Paul Cambon of Grey's virtual ultimatum (ibid. 89) 
to Lichnowsky, and was inexorable. The more Germany 
yielded, the more provocative and imperious he became. 

6. Germany's one aim now was to avoid a war in which 
England would almost certainly join, "drawn in," as Grey 
puts it, by his secret agreement with France and through 
France with Russia. Accordingly Germany accepted any 
terms from Sazonof, and urged Austria to accept them. 
Sazonof (ibid. 133) admits to de Etter that Austria ac- 
cepted them and had done so already when he mobilized 
against Germany, I believe with the express intention of 
provoking the Kaiser to war, in which (with the help of 
the war party in Berlin) he succeeded. 

7. Meanwhile Grey had great difficulty with the 
calDinet, a majority of whom flatly refused to go to war 
with Germany over Servia and preferred to throw over 
Grey's naval and other agreements with France (which 
on July 30 Cambon urged Grey to execute without delay, 
see White Book, 105). Grey threatened to resign, but on 
July 31 agreed to stay on until it was known if Germany 
would respect or not Belgian neutrality, as to which, on 
July 29 {White Book, 85), the German Chancellor had 
spoken ambiguously. If he really feared that France 
would violate it he should have demanded of us an as- 
surance that we would defend it vi et armis against France. 
We could not have refused such an assurance. But Bel- 
gian neutrality was the only thing the majority in our 
cabinet really cared about, and unless it — a small country 



39^ Germany's Point of View 

— was violated by Germany, a big one — the English 
people could not be relied upon to join in any war. Noth- 
ing else appealed to them in the least, and not a soul had 
any idea that Germany had already offered to respect Bel- 
gium. Accordingly on the afternoon of July 31 Goschen 
sounded Von Jagow about Belgium, and he could not 
answer without consulting the Kaiser and the Chancellor. 
The Kaiser, ever anxious to keep us out (and probably 
aware also that Russia would retire across the golden 
bridge he had built as soon as ever she learned that we 
were going to be neutral and not help her in her designs) 
ordered Lichnowsky to offer to respect Belgium and also 
to guarantee integrity of France and of French colonies, 
to offer, in short, any conditions in order to keep us out. 
Our cabinet in its turn anxious only to get from Germany 
a favorable answer about Belgium and to be able to keep 
the peace with Germany, met early on August i and drew 
up a memorandum about it, which Grey was to submit 
to Lichnowsky. There was perhaps someone in the cabinet 
who pointed out that to challenge Germany to respect 
Belgium, after signifying our intention of supporting 
France anyhow, was a work of supererogation. It was in 
effect to say : " I am going to war anyhow with you," and 
at the same time : " I will go to war with you if you 
touch Belgium." The Germans would probably answer, 
" We may as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb, 
and if we are, anyhow, to fight you, why should we forego 
the military advantages of going through Belgium ? " 

In our White Book, No. 123, may be read Grey's own 
abstract of his conversation with Lichnowsky. At about 
1 130, on August I, Lichnowsky freely offered to respect 
Belgium and also to guarantee the integrity of France, 
and of her colonies, although France (who really needed 
a straight waistcoat to keep her out of a quarrel which 
was not hers) could not complain, if she was beaten, of 
Germany helping herself to some of her colonies. Grey 
might have said to Lichnowsky that he could not barter 
our neutrality against an undertaking by Germany to re- 
spect Belgium, seeing that it was anyhow Germany's 
duty to respect Belgium. However, our cabinet was in a 
bartering mood, and they only wanted an excuse for not 
going to war with Germany. Lichnowsky therefore 
adopted the bartering tone and so did Grey. Grey evi- 
dently expected Lichnowsky to offer no sort of terms, and 



Sir Edward Grey 397 



when Lichnowsky made the proposals as he did, and fur- 
thermore besought him to formulate any conditions on 
which England would consent to be neutral, Grey refused 
all on the pretext of keeping his hands free (see No. 123). 
Lichnowsky must have gone away with the conviction 
that Grey anyhow wanted war. 

Now our cabinet plainly expected Grey to report to 
them at once any disposition to yield, if Germany showed 
signs of it. He knew that if he reported Lichnowsky's 
proposals, the cabinet would jump at them, and then he 
would be unable to execute his secret bond to France 
and Russia. What did he do? He told none of his col- 
leagues of them on August i, and when the cabinet met 
next morning, August 2, he concealed them from the 
entire cabinet, as he did from the House of Commons next 
day, August 3. By doing so he precipitated us into this 
war; I say he tricked us into war; us, a generous people 
(who — except for a few rabid chauvinists on the Tory 
side — were averse to war with Germany, with whom we 
were for the first time since Agadir on cordial terms) into 
war with you. Take my word for it, Grey will, in good 
time, be running for his life over this sinister business. 
Bismarck, in 1870, modified a telegram in order to pro- 
voke that owl Louis Napoleon into a declaration of war; 
Grey deliberately concealed from his colleagues and from 
Parliament overtures made by Lichnowsky, which would 
have been accepted at once ; but for Grey's action Belgium 
would not have been turned into a shambles, and in all 
probability Russia would have professed her satisfaction 
that Austria had accepted -her terms (dictated by Sazonof 
to Pourtales at 2 A. M. on July 30) and have shut up. I 
consider that Grey acted more criminally than Bismarck 
ever did. 

8. Mark the sequel. War ensued over Belgium, and 
weeks of it ensued before anyone knew of the interview 
given in White Book, 123. As soon, however, as Par- 
liament met on August 27, Keir Hardie, who spotted it, 
asked Grey whether he had submitted Lichnowsky's pro- 
posals to the cabinet and why they had not been made 
the basis of peace with Germany. Grey in his answer 
acknowledged that he had disclosed it to no one at the 
time, and excused himself on the ground that Lichnowsky 
in No. 123 was speaking de suo and without authority from 
Berlin. He acknowledged that Lichnowsky was actuated 



398 Germany's Point of View 

in making these proposals by a sincere desire for peace 
with us, but declared that Berlin in the background was 
as sincerely working for war. And yet he must have been 
well aware that Lichnowsky was acting on instructions 
from Berlin, as Lichnowsky's three despatches sent to 
Berlin about that interview at 1:15 P. M., 5:30 P. M. 
and 8 130 P. M. on August i sufficiently prove. Moreover, 
had Grey not known that Lichnowsky's proposals were 
authoritative and bound the German Government he would 
never have wired them at once to Goschen, lest the latter 
should get at cross purposes with our Foreign Office in 
the matter. All Grey's answers to Keir Hardie on August 
2y are thus a model of hard lying, suppression veri and sug- 
gestio falsi. Naturally the House of Commons, having 
been utterly hoodwinked by him, applauded. Presently 
they will send him to the gallows. I doubt if even Asquith 
knew of this crime, for on August 6 he based his whole 
argument on White Book, 85, but if he really Vvas Grey's 
accomplice, he will swing too. I fancy Lloyd George — a 
plastic tool in Grey's hands — begins to smell a rat, for 
he is going about the country now protesting loudly that 
he and the English democracy could and would never have 
been induced to go to war except by the aggression on 
Belgium. And that was certainly so. Look at last Sat- 
urday's Economist, edited by that decent fellow Hirst, and 
you will read how the whole business community in London 
and elsewhere suddenly swing round in favor of war on 
August 5, having till then abhorred the idea of war with 
Germany. 

9. And this shows what a calamitous error it was for 
Germany to invade through Belgium. It was bad enough 
for the Kaiser to send his ultimatum on August i, instead 
of waiting to see if Russia would not send him one, as she 
might very likely have done, though I doubt if without 
being fairly certain of us she would have done so, cer- 
tainly not had we declared our neutrality in time. The 
Belgian populace were sure to assail the invading army; 
that led to terrible excesses; and the wringing of large 
fines out of the poor starving population has accumulated 
in Italy — of which I read in the papers — and in America 
a bitterness against Germany which a more generous and 
humane treatment of Belgium would have avoided. Of 
course I do not believe all the atrocities retailed in our 
papers. Allowing one apache for every 500 soldiers that 



Sir Edward Grey 399 

went through Belgium you would get 2,000 of them, and 
that would explain as much of the stories as is likely to 
be true. You cannot avoid a sprinkling of apaches in 
every army, and the remarks of the authors of the History 
of the Boer War, compiled for the German general staff 
about the atrocities our men were accused of in the Trans- 
vaal (not only abroad but in England) are sound and 
full of common sense. 

10. I trust that Germany will respect the " positively 
formal assurance (made on August 4 in London) that, 
even in the case of armed conflict with Belgium, Germany 
will, under no pretence whatever, annex Belgian ter- 
ritory." I believe on that basis and on an undertaking 
of Germany to evacuate France, Wilson could restore 
peace between our two countries tomorrow, and put an 
end to all this useless murder. 

One thing we must insist on over here is that this sin- 
ister liar. Grey, who forever has peace on his lips and war 
in his heart, should go. We cannot trust him and his ac- 
complice Sazonof to make peace for England. 

11. I have said nothing of another side of the whole 
wretched matter, that is of the wicked press campaign 
which for years preceded this war in both countries. Too 
many, even sensible, Englishmen had derived from it 
the feeling that Germany wanted to attack us, and for that 
reason were ready to condone our attacking her, in case 
France was at war with her. I am not surprised if the 
suspicions Germans entertained of our desire to " down " 
Germany at the first opportunity seem to them to have 
been verified by this war. In point of fact that was upper- 
most in English minds all through, and what has poured 
over two millions of our youth into the army was very 
respectable wrath at the treatment of Belgium. Nothing 
else would have rallied the nation to the Government. 
Grey had respeatedly assured the country that our entente 
with Russia and France was in no way directed against 
Germany. 

12. I don't know if you sent me Bernstein's fac-similes 
of sundry " military conversations " between our military 
attache at Brussels and the Belgian generals. The first 
is an outline of a conversation, at the end of it the word 
fin (preceding name of month) only implies that it was 
held at that date. The printed copy turns fin into fini, 
and this is translated concluded, making it appear to be 



400 Germany's Point of View 

a diplomatic instrument or treaty, with binding power, 
which it was not. It is a mere ehauche, as is also the next 
document. Fini could anyhow in French not mean con- 
cluded or ratified as Bernstein seems to think, but only the 
explicit you put at end of a book. No doubt in the sec- 
ond document our military attache proposes to land Eng- 
lish troops to defend Belgium in case she were invaded 
whether Belgium asked for them or not, but there is no 
evidence that any agreement in that sense was reached by 
our Foreign Office. I much doubt it and our Foreign 
Office denies it. It is a pity that the Belgians did not 
follow the advice of Leopold ii, given twenty-five years 
ago, and put up an army like Switzerland, suitable'to their 
population and means ; for then the German staff would 
never have planned forcing the Meuse, defended as it 
would have been by 100,000 men, at the outset of a cam- 
paign. They knew quite well that we as guarantors of 
their country's neutrality were in the position of a man 
who, having £5, backs a bill for a million sterling. 

And now I have said not all it was in my mind to say, 
but as much as you will want to read. You are free to 
show this letter to anyone you like and even print it if 
you like. I do not see that any harm could result from my 
opinions being known, and I air them very freely here, 
already at two meetings of university tutors and the other 
night before the Fabians. I am writing a pamphlet on 
Grey for the Labor League. Meanwhile we must go on 
fighting it out, but I hope not for long. 
Ever yours sincerely, 

(Signed) F. C. Conybeare. 



CHAPTER XXXI 



SIR EDWARD S EVIDENCE 



D 



R. CONYBEARE'S letter, given in the preceding 
chapter, contains these significant words: 



In August and September and October I felt so sure 
that England had all the right on her side and Germany- 
all the wrong that I hardly troubled to read the diplomatic 
documents. 

Then a certain event made him hesitate and ask 
whether it was possible that England, or at least her 
leading man, Sir Edward Grey, might be in error. 
He studied the evidence, and as the result of his 
studies reached the conclusion that before long Eng- 
land would find Sir Edward Grey guilty of treason 
and send him to the gallows, for it was Grey's trea- 
sonable lies, he thought, that had rushed England 
into the war. 

How the English will choose to deal with Sir Ed- 
ward Grey is their own affair, but it is the affair of 
the whole world to enquire whether Dr. Conybeare's 
conclusions concerning Sir Edward's reliability are 
correct. 

There can be no doubt that in America Sir Edward's 
evidence has been generally credited as true. Pro- 
fessor Samuel Plarden Church, President of the Car- 
negie Institute, Pittsburg, and author of The Life of 
Cromwell, may be cited as a typical American, un- 
willing to form a rash judgment, and, therefore, eager 
to study the evidence. He has published his conclu- 

401 



402 Germany's Point of View 

sions in a pamphlet called Reply to the German Pro- 
fessors, and says: 

We are all going deeper than the surface in our search 
for the truth. ... In the English White Paper we 
have all the telegrams which were exchanged between 
the English Foreign Office over the signature of Sir Ed- 
ward Grey and the diplomatic officials of the other pow- 
ers, including the Imperial Chancellor of Germany.* 

And speaking of the American judgment, Pro- 
fessor Church says : 

That judgment is not based upon the lies and calumnies 
of the enemies of Germany, nor upon the careless pub- 
lication contained in newspapers, but upon a profound 
study of the official correspondence in the case, . . . 
and the public demand for this indisputable evidence has 
not yet been satisfied.! 

Professor Church, therefore, it will be seen, has 
placed implicit confidence in the completeness and 
honesty of Sir Edward's evidence. Nor is he alone 
in his belief. So keen an observer of America as 
Viscount Bryce w^as quoted in the Boston Herald of 
March 22, 1915, as follows: 

As to the general feeling in the United States, my 
correspondents entirely agree with what may be gathered 
from the leading American journals. The vast majority 
of the people condemn the German Government, laying 
the blame for the outbreak of the strife upon it and 
Austria. This they do not from racial sympathy with 
England nor from their traditional friendliness to France, 
but because their reading of the diplomatic correspond- 
ence in the first half of August convinced them that Ger- 
many zvas the aggressor and put herself utterly in the 
wrong. 



* Page 6. 
"^ Ibid., p. 13. 



Sir Edward's Evidence 403 

Both Viscount Bryce and Professor Church are 
right in explaining the pro-British attitude of many 
Americans by their study of the official documents. 
The British Blue Book, first published as a White 
Paper, reads well. It did, therefore, not occur to the 
people that its trustworthiness was doubtful. For 
these reasons a somewhat detailed investigation of 
Sir Edward's Evidence is in place even at this late 
hour. 

Sir Edward delivered his great speech in Parlia- 
ment on the evening of August 3, 1914. The speech, 
which was unsupported by documentary evidence — for 
the Blue Book was not issued until August 6 — was at 
once cabled to America. It should have, and was be- 
lieved to have, contained the salient points and facts, 
for England went to war on the information given by 
Sir Edward Grey on August 3, and was at war with 
Germany before the telegrams were published. 

Nobody can, of course, expect a minister to include 
every despatch in a speech. But he has the right to 
assume that the minister has not suppressed such in- 
formation as would have made his country keep the 
peace. Dr. Conybeare and many Englishmen believe 
that Sir Edward suppressed such information, and 
that if he had divulged it, peace would have been pre- 
served. Whatever view one wishes to take of this 
subject, the fact is established that Sir Edward's 
speech was accepted by many Americans and by most 
Englishmen as a fair and honorable statement of the 
facts. For this reason Dr. Conybeare's letter is of 
great importance. 

But it is possible to go even farther than the Oxford 
scholar and charge Sir Edward not only with unfor- 



404 Germany's Point of View 

tunate omissions, but also with positive falsehood. 
He said in his speech {Blue Book, p. 134), 

We have disclosed the issue, the information which 
we have. 

When he said this he had not disclosed the informa- 
tion he had on the following important points : 

(i). The telegrams exchanged between the royal 
houses of London, Berlin, and St. Petersburg, in 
which many people see the sincere efforts of the Ger- 
man Emperor to preserve peace; (2), the final offer 
of Germany made by the German Ambassador, and 
published later as Number 123 of the Blue Book; (3), 
the full promise made to France, which has -never been 
published by England, and seems to have been un- 
known even to Dr. Conybeare; (4), the British-Rus- 
sian naval agreement, without which Russia would 
never have dared to risk a war; (5), the "conversa- 
tions " between the British and Belgian general staffs, 
which had given to England all the military secrets of 
Belgium, and in a war between Germany and England 
made it practically impossible for Belgium to remain 
a neutral outsider. 

The first of these omissions is sufficiently discussed 
by Dr. Conybeare. The second, however, grows more 
formidable when one compares Sir Edward's excuse 
why he did not mention the final liberal offer of Ger- 
many with a message he sent to France. It will be 
remembered from Dr. Conybeare's letter that Sir Ed- 
ward explained, when he was challenged in Parlia- 
ment late in August, that he had thought the offer 
had been made unofficially by the German Ambassa- 



Sir Edward's Evidence 405 

dor, and not by Germany. Dr. Conybeare tried to 
prove the falsity of this excuse by innuendo, and has 
made a strong case. The whole matter, however, is 
clinched by Number 126 of the French Yellow Book,^ 
where the French Ambassador reports home his con- 
versation with Sir Edward Grey concerning Ger- 
many's offer. He writes under date of August i, 
1914: 

Sir Edward Grey has told me that in the council this 
morning the Cabinet considered afresh the situation. 
Germany having demanded from England a declaration 
of neutrality, and not having obtained it, the British 
Government remained master of its actions. 

There is not one word here of an '' unofficial " offer. 
On the contrary, the friendly proposals are presented 
to France as a demand made by Germany. 

When Sir Edward, therefore, told Parliament that 
he had disclosed his information, although he had not 
mentioned this offer, he did not speak the truth. And 
when he later told Parliament that he had believed 
the offer to have been unofficial, he either told a false- 
hood to Parliament or he had told one to Paul Cambon 
on August I, 19 1 4. 

And even this is not all, for Sir Edward actually 
spoke as follows on August 3 {Blue Book, pp. 128, 
129): 

But I understand that the German Government would 
be prepared, if we would pledge ourselves to neutrality, 
to agree that its fleet would not attack the northern coast 
of France. I have only heard that shortly before I came 
to the House, but it is far too narrow an engagement 
for us. 



* It is a strange fact that Dr. Conybeare has nowhere made 
use of the French Yellow Book. 



4o6 Germany's Point of View 

He had heard it on August i, and had heard much 
more, too, so that the last sentence is a deliberate false- 
hood. The German offer of August i reads (Blue 
Book, No. 123) : 

He [the German Ambassador] asked me whether if 
Germany gave a promise not to violate Belgium neu- 
trality we would engage to remain neutral. . . . The 
Ambassador pressed me as to whether I could not formu- 
late conditions on which we would remain neutral. He 
even suggested that the integrity of France and her 
colonies might be guaranteed. 

Under this liberal offer Sir Edw^ard might have se- 
cured the neutrality of Belgium, the integ'rity of 
France and her colonies, and the German agreement 
not to attack the northern coast of France with her 
fleet, exactly as Germany had refrained from doing in 
1870. In fact, he might have avoided the war. For 
France would have refused to support Russia, unless 
she had been sure of the support of England, and alone 
Russia would not have risked a war. 

One also should remember that Sir Edward declined 
this German offer with the words, " I could only say 
that we must keep our hands free," and that when he 
said this he had twice before, on the preceding day 
and on this very day, pledged himself personally to 
the French Ambassador and promised to secure the 
support of the Cabinet for France. The dealings of 
Sir Edward Grey in this entire matter have been fully 
exposed in the discussion of the French Yellow Book. 

The third point mentioned above as falsely stated in 
Sir Edward's speech of August 3, was the assurance 
which he said he had given to France. There is a 
discrepancy between the message he actually sent to 
France and the message he told Parliament the Cab- 



Sir Edward's Evidence 407 

inet had authorized him to send. The passage 
from the speech {Blue Book, p. 128), reads as fol- 
lows: 

Yesterday afternoon I gave to the French Ambassador 
the following statement: 

I am authorized to give an assurance that if the Ger- 
man fleet comes into the channel or through the North 
Sea to undertake hostile operations against the French 
coasts or shipping, the British fleet will give all the pro- 
tection in its power. This assurance is, of course, sub- 
ject to the policy of His Majesty's Government receiv- 
ing the support of Parliament, and must not he taken 
as binding His Majesty's Government to take any action 
until the above contingency of action by the German 
fleet takes place. 

The message which the French Ambassador sent 
home on August 3 {Yellow Book, No. 143), reads as 
follows : 

Sir Edward Grey has authorized me to tell you that 
you may inform Parliament that today he made declara- 
tions in the Commons as to the present attitude of the 
British Government, and that the chief of these declara- 
tions was as follows: 

If the German fleet cross the Straits or go north in 
the North Sea in order to double the British Isles with 
a view to attacking the French coasts or the French 
navy, or to disturbing the French mercantile marine, the 
British fleet will intervene in order to give the French 
marine entire protection, so that from that moment on 
England and Germany would he in a state of war. 

Sir Edward Grey pointed out that the mention of oper- 
ations through the North Sea implied protection against 
a demonstration in the Atlantic ocean. 

The declaration with regard to the intervention of the 
British- fleet, of which I gave you the text in my telegram 



4o8 Germany's Point of View 

of August 2,"^ is to be regarded as binding the British Gov- 
ernment. Sir Edward Grey assured me of this, and added 
that the French Government was therefore in a position 
to bring it to the knowledge of the Chambers. 

Who v^as in error ? Did Sir Edv^ard Grey give the 
above quoted message to the French Ambassador, or 
did he not? The French Prime Minister, M. Viviani, 
addressed the French Chambers on August 4 ( Yellozv 
Book, No. 159), and there repeated Sir Edv^ard Grey's 
declaration ending v^ith the w^ords, " so that from that 
moment on England and Germany v^ill be in a state 
of war ! " and continued, " From now on, therefore, 
the British fleet covers our northern and western 
coasts." 

Such a public announcement, it would seem, could 
not have been made without contradiction by Sir Ed- 
ward Grey if it had not been true. But if it was true, 
Sir Edward either did not tell Parliament the truth on 
August 3, or if he did, he had his speech revised for 
publication. In either case the American reader who 
has based his opinion at least in part on this speech 
must realize that he has builded on sand. 

He also should realize that Sir Edward uttered this 
threat of war before a single German soldier had en- 
tered Belgittm. Germany has always claimed that the 
certainty of England's entrance into the war, and the 
knowledge of secret understandings between England, 
France, and Belgium, forced her to anticipate her 
opponents or commit hari-kari. In Sir Edward's own 
publications none of the documents which prove his 
firm determination to join France against Germany, 

* This declaration is substantially the same as that given 
by Sir Edward Grey as the only one he sent to France. 



Sir Edward's Evidence 409 

whether Belgium was invaded or not, is printed. This 
explains the discrepancy between his published version 
and Viviani's public statement of the British message 
to France. 

The same reason induced Sir Edward Grey to keep 
from Parliament the naval agreement he had permitted 
to be made with Russia. There can no longer be any 
doubt that such an agreement exists. It was pointed 
out above in the discussion of the French Yellow 
Book that this Russian naval agreement is spoken of 
as a fact, with the further comment that its existence 
had made the German Ambassador pessimistic con- 
cerning the future of his country. And in Russia the 
general text of the agreement had actually been pub- 
lished ! * It had given Russia the conviction that in 
case of a conflict England would take her part and 
fight by her side. 

And even in America the conclusion of this British- 
Russian agreement had remained no secret. It was 
mentioned in the daily press, and Albert Shaw, editor 
of the American Review of Reviews, wrote in June 
for publication in the July number of his magazine : 

The bitter feeling between Russia and Austria con- 
tinues, if we may believe the tone of the press in these 
two countries, and the guarded, though unmistakable 
utterances of Russian and Austrian public men. It is 
believed that Russia is intending to provoke a near eastern 
crisis. Reports are also rife that a secret naval conven- 
tion has been concluded between England and Russia, 
with the object of enforcing the demands of the Triple 
Entente against Germany. 

Here not only mention is made of the Russo-English 
naval agreement, but a definite hint of the aggressive 

* For the translation see p. 44, 



410 Germany's Point of View 

attitude of the Triple Entente is given. Sir Edward's 
evidence, however, is so arranged that the reader re- 
ceives the impression that nothing had been further 
from the mind of England, Russia, and France than 
aggressive ideas. What these ideas were, so far as 
Russia is concerned, is explained in the sam.e number 
of the American Review of Reviews, which quotes the 
eminent Russian statesman. Professor Mitronov of 
Moscow, as saying: 

Germany has pushed Russia out of the Balkans and 
put Austria across her path. For Russia, however, ex- 
tension into the Balkans is a " political necessity," and 
nothing short of the possession of the Bosphorus and the 
Dardanelles will end the intolerable situation. 

Knowing these wishes of Russia, Sir Edward Grey 
entered into a secret naval agreement with her, 
stiffened her backbone, and placidly saw her make her 
preparations for the war. The same number of the 
American Review of Reviezvs contains also this item : 

An evidence that Russia is preparing for some warlike 
movement on a large scale is furnished by a letter of a 
Tiflis correspondent appearing in a French newspaper. 
That part of the Russian Trans-Caucasus territory known 
as Georgia was the center of the revolutionary whirlwind 
of 1905- 1906, towards the close of the Russo-Japanese 
war. It seems that the terrible repressive measures which 
were then taken to punish these revolutionary sentiments 
are now to be repeated with even greater vigor in the 
same regions. It is a striking illustration of the ruth- 
less methods of Russian militarism. 

If such and similar Russian measures, notably the 
Russian mobilization which has been discussed above, 
were known to the Paris press, they were known also 
to Sir Edward Grey. There is, however, in all his docu- 
ments not one despatch that gives the least hint that 



Sir Edward's Evidence 411 

he tried to moderate the Russian aggressive spirit 
On the contrary, he encouraged it, for nothing was so 
well calculated to stiffen the Russian military party 
than the knowledge of the people that England had at 
last been prevailed upon to commit herself, and had 
made a secret naval agreement with Russia. 

It is not claimed that this agreement was a formal 
treaty. It was a "gentleman's agreement," just as 
the understanding with France had been based on 
nothing more than two letters exchanged between Sir 
Edward Grey and Paul Cambon, the French Ambas- 
sador. These Sir Edward was obliged to lay before 
Parliament on August 3, after he had repeatedly de- 
nied in the House of Commons that any understanding 
with France existed. This whole question of Sir 
Edward's quibbling with words and misinforming 
Parliament is fully treated by C. H. Norman in a 
pamphlet, Britain and The War: A Study in Diplo- 
macy, London and Manchester, 19 14. 

The French letters had been preceded and followed 
by exhaustive discussions between the French and 
British military authorities. The same has been true 
of the Russo-English relations as appears from the 
Russian version of the naval agreement. If Sir 
Edward, therefore, said to Parliament, " We have dis- 
closed the information we have," without giving his 
understanding with Russia, he conveyed to his hearers 
an impression which does not square with the facts. 

And what can finally be said of Sir Edward's 
lengthy discussion of the Belgian question in his 
speech of August 3, without informing Parliament of 
the fact that negotiations between the British and 
Belgian military authorities had been in progress for 



412 Germany's Point of View 

years, and that on the strength of such " conversa- 
tions" England found herself in complete possession 
of the military secrets of Belgium, and had herself 
worked out a definite plan of throwing troops into 
Belgium? Some of the documents which prove the 
close relations that have existed for years between 
England and Belgium were discovered by the German 
Government in Brussels, and published in the North 
German Gazette, the German official paper, on October 
12. Facsimile reproductions of two of these docu- 
ments appeared in the same paper on November 25, 
1914. At first the pro-Allies' press was tempted to 
doubt the genuineness of these documents, but on 
January 2y, 1915, Sir Edward Grey inadvertently ac- 
knowledged their genuineness in trying to refute some 
of the charges against him that had been based on 
them. 

The question as to what extent these Anglo-Belgian 
conversations had impaired the standing of Belgium 
as a neutral country does not belong here, and has 
been fully discussed in earlier chapters. The impor- 
tant point in the appreciation of Sir Edward's trust- 
worthiness is that he discussed the Belgian question 
at length without referring to the Anglo-Belgian un- 
derstanding, and yet had the courage to utter these 
words : " We have disclosed the issue, the information 
which we have." 

Quite recently and after waiting almost six months 
the Belgian Government has made a tardy defense 
against the charge that by entering into an Anglo- 
Belgian military understanding it had betrayed the 
Belgian people. The censorship is severe, but enough 
news has leaked through to make it probable that King 



Sir Edward's Evidence 413 

Albert and his government will find it exceedingly 
difficult to convince the Belgians that they were not 
responsible for their sufferings, if the German publi- 
cations are proved to be true. This explains King 
Albert's tardy defence which was issued on March 17. 
Cabled extracts appeared in the American press of the 
following date, and the full document was printed here 
on March 31, 1915. 

The Belgian defense is threefold : ( i ) , the German 
allegations are a " tissue of lies " and their " facsimile " 
publications falsified; (2), the measures discussed in 
the documents were forced upon Belgium by the Ger- 
man danger; (3), the Belgian Government is entirely 
innocent of the charge of having taken the measures 
rendered necessary by the German danger and dis- 
cussed in the documents. 

Let the reader pay tribute in passing to the magnifi- 
cent logic of this defense, and then proceed to the in- 
vestigation of the specific charge of dishonesty made 
by the Belgian Government against Germany. It is 
thus stated: 

To produce an impression on those ignorant of the 
facts, " German honesty " suppressed, when the precis 
of the above-named conversation was published, the clause 
in which it was set forth that the exchange of opinion 
therein recorded had reference only to the situation that 
would be created if Belgian neutrality had already been 
violated. 

The Belgian Government gives to the allegations of 
the German Chancery the only answer that they deserve — 
they are a tissue of lies, all the more shameless because 
they are set forth by persons who claim to have studied 
the original documents. But what are the documents 
which Germany produces in order to prove Belgium 
guilty? They are two in number: (i), The narrative of 
certain interviews which took place between Lieutenant 



414 Germany's Point of View 

General Ducarne and Colonel Barnardiston in 1906. In 
the course of these interviews the British officer set forth 
his views as to the way in which England could help 
Belgium in case the latter were attacked by Germany. 
One phrase in the document clearly proves that Colonel 
Barnardiston is dealing with a hypothetical case, viz., 
" the entry of English troops into Belgium would only 
take place after a violation of Belgian neutrality by Ger- 
many." The translation in the Norddeutsche Zeitung 
[the official Gazette] of November 25 omits this clause. 

When the Belgian Government made this charge 
they believed that the German Official Gazette jNonld 
not be available in the neutral countries, where it was 
hoped the charge would fall on fertile ground. The 
facts are as follows : The sentence appears ( i ) in the 
facsimile published by the Gazette, (page i). It is a 
marginal note and appears in exactly the same position 
in which it was written in the original; (2), in the dis- 
cussion of the text (page 2, column 4, lines 34 to 37), 
the following is written: 

In the document there is the following marginal note: 
L'entree des Anglais en Belgique ne se ferait quapres la 
violation de noire neutralite par l' Allemagne. 

When Dr. Bernhard Dernburg issued his publica- 
tion of these documents he inserted the marginal note 
in the running text (page 4, column i, paragraph 5, 
lines 4 to 6). It may, however, well be asked whether 
the official Gazette did not give greater prominence to 
this important sentence by devoting a paragraph to it 
at the end of the translation of the running text, than 
Dr. Dernburg did by inserting it in the text. 

The charge of dishonesty, therefore, made by the 
Belgian Government falls to the ground. And the 
same is true of the second charge which, in the Belgian 
defense, reads as follows: 



Sir Edzvard's Evidence 415 

Moreover, the photograph of General Ducarne's report 
contains the words : " The officer with whom I spoke in- 
sists that our conversation has been absolutely confiden- 
tial." For the word conversation the Norddeutsche Zei- 
tung substitutes the word " convention." Colonel Barna- 
diston is made to say that " our convention " has been 
absolutely confidential ! 

Such proceedings need no commentary. 

The facts from the official Gazette are these: The 
facsimile reproduction of the letter (page 2, last word 
of line i), is "conversation/' and not "convention," 
as the Belgian charge would make one believe. In the 
translation (page 2, column i, line 34), this is trans- 
lated with ahkommen, which is perhaps most ac- 
curately rendered in English by "understanding." 
The translation into English is easy because both lan- 
guages possess the word "conversation," and in both 
the meaning of the word may range from " desultory 
talk " to " understanding." In German the case is dif- 
ferent, for while a translator who is not afraid of 
using a foreign word might have said " konversation," 
nine people out of ten would probably have rendered 
"conversation" here by ahkommen, for the text im- 
plies that the two military representatives of Great 
Britain and Belgium had come to an understanding. 

The Belgian defense continued: 

The British Government has always held, as did the 
Belgian Government, that the consent of the latter was 
a necessary preliminary [to the entry of British troops 
into Belgium]. 

This assertion is flatly contradicted by the docu- 
ments themselves, the second of which contains these 
words : 



41 6 Germany's Point of View 

Lieutenant-Colonel Bridges told the [Belgian] Gen- 
eral that ... at the time of the recent events the 
British Government would have immediately effected a 
disembarkment in Belgium even if we had not asked for 
assistance. The General objected that for that our con- 
sent was necessary. 

The military attache [Lt.-Col. Bridges] answered that 
he knew this, but that, since we were not able to prevent 
the Germans from passing through our country, England 
would have landed her troops in Belgium anyhow \^en 
tout etat de cause']. 

Very interesting also are the remarks which Xord 
Roberts made in the British Review of August, 19 13, 
and which are here quoted from the Fatherland of 
IVCarch 17, 1915: 

I do not think the nation yet realizes how near it was 
to war as lately as August, 191 1. For many autumn 
nights our home fleet lay in Cromarty Firth with torpedo 
nettings down, with the gun crews sleeping on deck, with 
a live projectile ready in each gun, and with the war 
heads fitted to each and every torpedo. Our Expedition- 
ary Force was held in equal readiness instantly to embark 
for Flanders to do its share in maintaining the balance of 
power in Europe. 

There is not a word here of asking the consent of 
Belgium. And whatever the American press may say, 
no English officer can be found who can deny on his 
honor that it had not been known for years in British 
military circles that England would send her troops 
to Belgium in case of war, whether Belgium wished 
this or no. After Belgium had given her military 
secrets to England, who knew the exact size of each 
garrison, the number of guns, how far they could 
shoot, where each place was vulnerable, how many 
troops could be fed in each village or town, where the 
Belgian troops would gather, how they planned to 



Sir Edward's Evidence 417 

provision themselves, and so on, Belgium was no 
longer free to act as she chose. When she first dis- 
cussed her military affairs with England, she may have 
done so absolutely honestly and in fear of an invasion 
by Germany. When her Government permitted these 
" conversations " to go as far as they were carried 
under Sir Edward Grey's instructions this Govern- 
ment suddenly found itself entirely at the mercy of its 
new allies. The fiction has been kept up in the 
American press that Belgium is not one of the Allies, 
but a neutral for whose restoration the Allies are 
fighting. But even Mr. Bryan knows better, and in 
the famous interview he granted the Rev. D. Mac- 
Fayden for the Westminster Gazette of December 23, 
1914, he refers to Belgium as the ally'^ of England. 
And such Belgium undoubtedly is, and was even be- 
fore the war began, for that intimate relations had 

* The tone of this interview was so strongly anti-German, 
and the reference to Belgium as the "ally" of England so 
important, if true, that the author wrote to Mr. Bryan asking 
him to confirm or deny the accuracy of the interview. The 
following courteous reply was received : 

Department of State, Washington, D. C. 

December 29, 1914. 
My Dear Sir: 

For Mr. Bryan I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter 
of December 25th in which you ask permission to quote the 
purported interview with Rev. Donald MacFayden on Decem- 
ber 7th, as authentic. 

In reply I am directed to say that Reverend MacFayden 
called at the State Department. He has reported the conver- 
sation from memory. The Secretary has no doubt that 
Doctor MacFayden tried to be accurate, but he would not 
v/ant to have his words taken as an exact statement of his 
views. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

(Signed) E. C. SWEET, 

Mr. Edmund von Mach, Confidential Clerk. 

48 Shepard Street, Cambridge, Mass. 



41 8 Germany's Point of View 

been established between Sir Edward Grey and the 
Belgian Government is proved by the Brussels docu- 
ments. 

Like the ambassadorial agreement with France, and 
the naval agreement with Russia, the Belgian under- 
standing had remained secret. Parliament and the 
English people had no idea how far Sir Edward had 
committed them. One of these agreements he was 
forced to disclose on August 3, and in choosing the 
French letters he gauged wisely the temper of his 
countrymen. He was equally wise in refraining from 
disclosing the other two, for an irate Parliament and 
surely an irate electorate would have swept him from 
the stage of politics. 

Wise reticence is an admirable quality, but to keep 
silent on several of the most important bits of informa- 
tion, and yet to say with the air of an honest man: 
"We have disclosed the issue, the information which 
we have" — this is not admirable. 



s 



CHAPTER XXXII 

SIR Edward's evidence 
(Concluded) 

O many people have read the British Blue Book 
and German White Paper and other official docu- 
ments, who never before had even seen such publica- 
tions, let alone looked into them, that the ethical prin- 
ciples according to which state papers are edited were 
unknown to them. The pro-English press, moreover, 
and such writers as James M. Beck, have led them to 
believe that governments are accustomed to publish in 
their various white, blue, gray, or orange papers the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 
This, however, is nowhere done. 

There are many bits of information which come to a 
government through its diplomatic connections which it 
would be indelicate, discourteous, or unwise to give to the 
public. The official documents on American foreign rela- 
tions and all white, gray, or orange papers are " edited." 
They are understood to be so by Congress, Parliament, 
the Reichstag, the Duma, etc., and no charge of dishon- 
esty can be maintained against the respective govern- 
ments on that score. 

This whole question has been so carefully treated 
in the New York Times' Current History of the War 
(Vol. I, No. 3, pp. 438 ff), that it is not necessary 
to repeat here the arguments and proofs there given. 
They were compiled as a reply to ex-Assistant Attor- 
ney-General James M. Beck, whose article In the Su- 
preme Court of Civilization has been reprinted in book 

419 



420 Germany's Point of View 

form and won the approval of the Allies and pro- 
Allies press. Mr. Beck is a member of the law firm 
of Shearman and Sterling, and is upholding the pro- 
English traditions of this firm. During the Civil War, 
when the Union was suffering untold insults and dam- 
ages at the hands of England, Shearman was the de- 
fender of his country's worst enemies, and the motto 
of the firm seems to have been ever since, " England, 
right or wrong.. We are for England first, last, and 
forever ! " 

Since the reply to Mr. Beck in the New Y or Jf Times 
was written, the French Yellow Book has been pub- 
lished and other documents have come to light on the 
strength of which it is possible to prove the inac- 
curacy and incompleteness of Sir Edward's Blue Book 
in several particulars. A careful reading of the Bhte 
Book itself, moreover, has revealed falsifications of 
such a serious character that they seem to be incom- 
patible with the assumption of honesty on the part of 
the editor. 

The most glaring of all the omissions is Sir 
Edward's suppression of the dossier by which Austria 
explained her demarche against Servia. If these Aus- 
trian proofs had been in the hands of the members of 
Parliament when the Blue Book was distributed to 
them, and if they had been read by the American 
people, when they formed their impressions of the 
causes of the war by reading "the diplomatic cor- 
respondence in the first half of August," as Viscount 
Bryce says, an entirely different impression might 
have been created. But be this as it may, nobody can 
defend Sir Edward's suppression of this important 
document. 



Sir Edward's Evidence 421 

It was sent from Vienna on July 25, and presented 
both in Paris and in London on July 2y. The French 
Yellow Book prints most* of it as received on that 
day, and calls it a "positive act of accusation against 
Servia." In it Austria sets forth her relations with 
Servia, and by documentary evidence and reports from 
the Servian press, including the official Servian Gov- 
ernment paper, tries to prove the complicity of the 
Servian Government in the murder of Serajevo. 

Sir Edward received the dossier on the same day, 
July 27, and in the first paragraph of Number 48 of his 
Blue Book gives a very insufficient summary of it, so 
worded that no reader would suspect that it is based 
on an exhaustive presentation of Austria's grievances 
against Servia. Whatever force, moreover, may have 
remained in the emasculated summary is spoiled by 
Sir Edward's own commentary on it in the last para- 
graph. This is not a sportsmanlike procedure. 
Honesty demanded the publication of Austria's dossier, 
or if Sir Edward considered it too long, or an insuffi- 
cient explanation of Austria's course, at least the men- 
tion that he had received what Austria believed to be 
proofs of the justice of her contentions. 

As the suppression of the dossier is the most glaring 
omission from the British Blue Book, so Number 105 
contains the most glaring falsification. This is the 
famous despatch of Sir Edward Grey to his Ambas- 
sador in Paris, dated July 30, in which he enclosed as 
a proof of his assertion that Germany was assuming 

* For the full text of the dossier see the Austrian Red Book. 
The Yellow Book does not print the several Annexes. In the 
absence of further proof it is impossible to state whether 
the Annexes are later additions, or whether the French Gov- 
ernment failed to print the document in full. 



422 Germany's Point of View 

a threatening attitude toward France, a telegram from 
the French Minister of Foreign Affairs to Paul Cam- 
bon, the French Ambassador in London, dated July 
31. The impossibility of enclosing a note of July 31, 
in one written on July 30, was so apparent that Sir 
Edward omitted the date, July 31, in the later issues 
of his documents.* But even the omission of this date 
did not make the note square with the facts. July 30 
was Thursday. The enclosed note read: "The Ger- 
man army had its advance posts on our frontiers yes- 
terday (Friday)." It was, therefore, necessary^ in the 
later editions to omit " Friday." But even this change 
did not suffice, because later on in the note, as first 
printed, these words occur: ^ 

All my information goes to show that the German prep- 
arations began on Saturday, the very day on which the 
Austrian note was handed in. 

This is another mistake, and to correct it Sir Ed- 
ward Grey had recourse to a footnote in his later 
reprints. The footnote to "Saturday" reads : 

Sic: in original. The actual date of the presentation 
of the Austrian ultimatum was, in fact, Thursday, July 
23. The Servian reply was dated Saturday, July 25, and 
it is clearly to the latter document that reference is in- 
tended. 

This sounds honest. "Sic: in original!" Unfor- 
tunately for Sir Edward Grey the original despatch 

*For a full discussion of these dates, see the author's 
chapter in Why Europe is At War, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 
1915. The New York Times reprint of the English docu- 
ments gives the first version; the so-called Blue Book, issued 
in London Foreign Office, September 28, 1914, gives the 
second version. 



Sir Edward's Evidence 423 

has been printed in the French Yellow Book, Number 
106, and a comparison of Sir Edward's version of the 
French despatch with the despatch itself reveals the 
remarkable fact that Sir Edward has re-written the 
original, using the exact French words wherever pos- 
sible, but interpolating new ones whenever his several 
alterations made this necessary. To make the des- 
patch stronger, Sir Edward began it with a sentence of 
the last paragraph, which reads : 

The German army's advance posts are at our frontier 
ports. 

And to make it more definite he added a date. The 
original French despatch is dated July 30. Sir Ed- 
ward had it re-written for presentation to the Cabinet 
meeting on July 31, and possibly showed it to his col- 
leagues as having just been received. On July 31 he 
may have felt at liberty to add to the French state- 
ment "yesterday," or since the Cabinet meeting was 
on Friday to keep the French sentence, which is writ- 
ten in the present tense, and to add Friday in paren- 
thesis. Whatever explanation is given one thing is 
sure. Sir Edward's first publication of the French des- 
patch is as impossible as the second. The French note 
contained neither " yesterday " nor " Friday," and was 
written in the present tense. The English "transla- 
tion" interpolated a date and changed the present to 
the past tense " had." 

And more ! The French note actually contains two 
references to " Saturday," to which Sir Edward felt 
obliged to add his footnote. They read : 

The preparation in the fortresses (the cutting of wood, 
mounting of guns, construction of batteries, strengthening 



424 Germany's Point of View 

of wire entanglements) had already started * in Germany 
on Saturday, the 25th. . . , The stations were occu- 
pied in Germany on Saturday, the 25th. 

In both cases " the 25th " is added to Saturday, and 
as appears from the note, no measures of mobilization 
are spoken of, merely a re-arrangement of the troops 
on regular peace footing, and those protective meas- 
ures which any commandant of a frontier fortress 
might deem it necessary to take. Sir Edward took 
the first passage as serving his purposes best, altered 
the singular " preparation " to the plural, and by omit- 
ting the words which explain what preparations are 
meant, gave the impression that the note had reference 
to steps generally referred to as mobilization. He 
wished to convey the impression that Germany and 
Austria had used the Serajevo murder as a pretext for 
an aggressive war, and, therefore, substituted for *' the 
25th " the words " the very day on which the Austrian 
note was handed in." In this he made a mistake, and 
since this sentence had been printed in his first edition, 
had to have recourse to a foot note. 

It is not necessary to discuss Sir Edward's falsifica- 
tion of this note further. Those who wish to ascer- 
tain the truth can compare the English version with 
the French original. They will then see for them- 
selves which passages Sir Edward felt obliged to 
omit, and why, and what changes he made in the origi- 
nal sentences he used. One change is rather note- 
worthy. Sir Edward's version speaks of the "pacific 
intentions" of France, while the French original says 
that " France is resohite/^ 

* This Is quoted from the New York Times translation. 
The French original is as accurately translated with " begun " 
as with " started." 



Sir Edward's Evidence 425 

Those who read the whole French note and may 
gather from it the impression that France really be- 
lieved Germany was taking aggressive military meas- 
ures on July 30, and had done so for several days, are 
reminded that on the same day, July 30, Viviani, the 
French Premier, had telegraphed to his ambassador 
in St. Petersburg instructions to urge Sazonof to " take 
no immediate steps which might offer to Germany a 
pretext for the total or partial mobilization of her 
forces." {Yellow Book, Number loi). Such a des- 
patch would have been nonsense if Viviani had not 
known that Germany had not yet proceeded even to a 
partial mobilization of her forces. A copy of this 
despatch was sent to Paul Cambon, the French Ambas- 
sador in London, and unless one wishes to assume that 
he wilfully kept this information from Sir Edward 
Grey — which, considering the close relations of these 
men is incredible — Sir Edward Grey knew that Ger- 
many had not even partially mobilized when he pre- 
sented his falsified version of the French note to the 
Cabinet on Friday, July 31. 

That Sir Edward is not above insinuating false im- 
pressions is proved also by the internal evidence of his 
own Blue Book. The carefully prepared edition of 
September 28, 19 14, contains an " Introductory Narra- 
tive of Events." On page ix Sir Edward writes : 

Sir Edward Grey telegraphed to Berlin once more. 
" Mediation," he said, " was ready to come into operation 
by any method that Germany thought possible, if only 
Germany would press the button in the interest of peace." 
The telegram was despatched at about 4 o'clock on the 
evening of the 29th. 

This appeal was followed almost immediately by a 
strange response. About midnight a telegram arrived at 
the Foreign Office from His Majesty's Ambassador at 



426 Germany's Point of View 

Berlin. The German Chancellor had sent for him late 
at night. He had asked if Great Britain would promise 
to remain neutral in a war, provided Germany did not 
touch Holland and took nothing from France but her 
colonies. 

Turning to the despatches themselves, Sir Edward's 
offer of mediation is contained in Number 84, while 
the next number contains the enquiry from the Ger- 
man Chancellor. By an oversight, however, the last 
paragraph of this despatch has not been omitted, and 
proves that Number 85 is not a response to Number 
84. The nearest approach to a reply to Number 84 
contained in the Blue Book is Number 107, received 
in London on July 31. When Sir Edward, therefore, 
called Number 85 a response to Number 84, and 
printed the two despatches in juxtaposition to bear out 
his statement, he was guilty of one of those deceptions 
which honorable men despise. 

On page vii of his "Introductory Narrative of 
Events," Sir Edward writes : 

On the 23d July the Austrian Ambassador told Sir E. 
Grey that an ultimatum was being handed to Servia. 
For the first time Sir E. Grey heard " that there would 
be something in the nature of a time limit." 

This statement is not true, unless one wishes to assume 
that the British sources of information were less than 
those of the French, and that the French Government 
intentionally kept Sir Edward in the dark. The 
French Government was informed by its Ambassador 
in Vienna on July 20 {Yellow Book, Number 14), that 

The shifts by which Servia will no doubt wish to delay 
a direct and clear reply have been taken into account, and 
that is why a brief delay will be fixed for her to notify her 
acceptance of her refusal. 



Sir Edward's Evidence 427 

This means that France knew on July 20 that the 
note to Servia would contain a time limit. And yet 
Sir Edward writes that he first heard of it when the 
note was presented on July 23 ! 

He also studiously refrains from stating in his Blue 
Book that the vServian Minister in Berlin had declared 
on July 20 (French Yellow Book, Number 15) that, 

This Government was ready to listen to the request o£ 
Austria arising out of the Serajevo outrage, provided 
that she did not demand judiciary cooperation. 

Austria apparently had intended to ask this, but on 
the request of Germany dropped it and asked only for 
participation in the investigation. 

Nobody needs ask why Sir Edward suppressed this 
information. It was his intention to present Germany 
as bound to have war, and unwilling to exert any mod- 
erating influence on Austria. Sir Edward, therefore, 
suppressed all information tending to show that Ger- 
many had done everything possible from the very be- 
ginning to preserve the peace of Europe. The several 
efforts in this direction made by Germany appeared 
from the study of the French Yellow Book above, and 
need no repetition here. 

Only one other despatch from the French Yellow 
Book should be mentioned because it is of incalculable 
importance for the understanding of the causes of the 
war, and because Sir Edward Grey, who must have 
known its bearing, has not referred to the information 
it contained, either in his " Introductory Narrative " or 
in any of his despatches. It is a note {Yellow Book, 
Number 27, July 24, 1914), from the French Acting 
Minister of Foreign Affairs to his plenipotentiaries in 
Stockholm, Belgrade, London, St. Petersburg, Berlin, 



428 Germany's Point of View 

and Rome, and contains the information sent him by 
the French Ambassador in Vienna. According to this 
the Servian Minister in Austria acknowledges the 
guilt of Servians in the murder of Serajevo, and the 
existence of an anti-Servian propaganda in Servia ! 

Whatever one may think of Sir Edward's honesty, 
his consistency is admirable, for with unerring pre- 
cision he has omitted from his Blue Book every in- 
formation which tended to show that Servia was guilty 
on the evidence of her own ministers (Yellow Book, 
Number 27) or of Austria's exhaustive dossier (Yel- 
low Book, Number 75) ; that Servia was at first will- 
ing to accept Austria's modified ultimatum (Yellow 
Book, Number 15) ; that Germany exerted a moder- 
ating influence on Austria (see page 255), in short 
every bit of information which did not fit into his 
nicely arranged case that Germany had planned the 
war and that an innocent Servia had to serve as a pre- 
text. 

Omission and falsification are written large over 
this chapter of Sir Edward's Evidence ; and when the 
passions have cooled and scholars study his docu- 
ments, he will not escape the judgment which over- 
takes all who by false evidence try to prove a case. 

Some despatches are included in the British Blue 
Book for which Sir Edward Grey may not have been 
personally responsible, but whose variance with the 
true facts detracts from the credibility of his evidence. 

On July 30, Sir G. Buchanan, the British Ambas- 
sador at St. Petersburg, reported two interviews he 
had had in company with the French Ambassador, with 
the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Sazonof 
(British Blue Book, Number 97). The French 



Sir Edward's Evidence 



429 



[Omitted] 



Ambassador sent reports to his home office of the same 
interviews. (Yellow Book, Numbers 102 and 103). 
There is no reason whatsoever to beheve that the 
French Ambassador or his home office altered what 
Sazonof had told them, for nobody will suspect the 
French of falsifying despatches in the interest of Ger- 
many, The notes are too long to be reprinted in full, 
but a few passages deserve to be placed side by side. 

FRENCH NO. 102 ENGLISH NO. 97 

M. Sazonof, whom I have 
informed of your desire to 
see, avoided any military 
measure that might give 
Germany a pretext for gen- 
eral mobilization [Note : his 
instructions read " total or 
partial mobilization"], re- 
plied that in the course of 
last night the General Staff 
had suspended the execution 
of some precautionary mili- 
tary measures, so as to 
avoid any misunderstand- 
ing. . . . On the other 
hand, the Russian General 
Staff and Admiralty have 
received alarming informa- 
tion as to the preparation of 
the German Army and 
Navy. 

It will be noticed that Sir G. Buchanan omits all ref- 
erence to the suspension of the Russian mobilization, 
which was designed to prevent Germany from taking 
any military steps on her part. Such an admission 
would not have squared with Sir Edward's Evidence, 
according to which Germany had begun her prepara- 
tions days before. 



M. Sazonof told us that 
absolute proof was in pos- 
session of Russian Govern- 
ment that Germany was 
making military and naval 
preparations against Russia. 



430 



Germany's Point of View 



In the second paragraph the Russian " alarming in- 
formation" has been turned by Sir G. Buchanan into 
" absolute proof." It is well known that Germany did 
not order mobilization until August i, as of August 2. 
While, therefore, some unreliable and alarming infor- 
mation might have come to Sazonof, he could not pos- 
sibly have spoken of " absolute proof." 

The discrepancies between the French and English 
accounts of the second interview are even more aston- 
ishing, and show Sir G. Buchanan's or Sir Edward's 
animus toward Germany. M. Sazonof had repeated 
to the two ambassadors his interview with the German 
Ambassador. 



FRENCH NO. IO3 

The German ambassador 
called tonight upon M. Sa- 
zonof to urge again, but in 
less categorical terms, that 
Russia should cease her 
military preparations, af- 
firming that Austria would 
do nothing against the ter- 
ritorial integrity of Servia. 



[The same] 



BRITISH NO. 97, SECOND PART 

German ambassador had 
a second interview with 
Minister of Foreign Af- 
fairs at 2 a. m., when for- 
mer completely broke down 
on seeing that war was in- 
evitable. 

[The reference to Rus- 
sia's mobilization is 
omitted.] 

He appealed to M. Sa- 
zonof to make some sugges- 
tion which he could tele- 
graph to German Govern- 
ment as a last hope. M. 
Sazonof accordingly drew 
up and handed to German 
Ambassador a formula in 
French, of which following 
is translation: 

"If Austria, recognizing 
that the conflict with Servia 
has assumed character of 



Sir Edward's Evidence 



431 



Count de Pourtales prom- 
ised to urge this proposal 
on his Government. In M. 
Sazonof's opinion the ac- 
ceptance of his proposal by- 
Austria will have as a log- 
ical consequence the open- 
ing of a deliberation of the 
powers in London. 



question of European inter- 
est, declares herself ready 
to eliminate from her ulti- 
matum points which violate 
principle of sovereignty of 
Servia, Russia engages to 
stop all military prepara- 
tions." 

Preparations for general 
mobilization will be pro- 
ceeded with if this proposal 
is rejected by Austria, and 
inevitable result will be a 
European war. Excitement 
herehas reached suchapitch 
that if Austria refuses to 
make a concession, Russia 
cannot hold back, and now 
that she knows that Ger- 
many is arming [Note : this 
was written on the same 
day on which Viviani said 
that Germany had not even 
begun partial mobilization] 
she can hardly postpone for 
strategical reasons, convert- 
ing partial into general 
mobilization. 



According to the French version, Sazonof was 
counting with the possibility of a peaceful solution, 
while Buchanan quotes him as practically ready for 
war. Why this discrepancy? And why, it may be 
asked, did Austria not seize this opportunity and by 
accepting Sazonof's offer stop the Russian mobiliza- 
tion? 

The answer adds another black mark to Sir Ed- 
ward's diplomacy, for at the request of his Ambas- 
sador at St. Petersburg", Sazonof withdrew his offer, 
substituting for it one which was impossible of ac- 



432 Germany's Point of View 

ceptance. This is perhaps the most serious charge 
that can be made against Sir Edward, but it is fully- 
substantiated. 

Sazonof had made his offer late on July 30, or more 
properly in the night of July 30-31, at the immediate 
request of the German Ambassador and without con- 
sultation with the British and French Ambassadors. 
On the next day, July 31, the French Ambassador re- 
ported to Paris {Yellow Book, Number 113) : 

M. Sazonof informs me that he has modified his for- 
mula, at the request of the British Ambassador, as fol- 
lows: 

Then he transmits Sazonof 's new formula, which 
makes greater demands on Austria, the chief of which 
is that Austria " stay the advance of her troops on 
Servian territory," and instead of promising that Rus- 
sia would " stop all military preparations," ends with 
the ambiguous phrase : " Russia undertakes to main- 
tain her waiting attitude." Since Russia at that time 
had been vigorously mobilizing for some time, and at 
least since July 25, according to the Czar's own tele- 
gram, maintaining " her waiting attitude " cannot 
mean stopping "all military preparations." 

Sir Edward cannot claim that his Ambassador had 
acted de suo, and contrary to Sir Edward's wishes, for 
on the same day, July 31, he himself writes to Bu- 
chanan (British Blue Book, Number no*) : 

The German Ambassador asked me to urge the Russian 
Government to show goodwill in the discussions and to 
suspend their military preparations. ... I informed 
the German Ambassador that, as regards military prepara- 
tions, I did not see how Russia could be urged to sus- 



* See also Blue Book, Number 103. 



Sir Edward's Evidence 433 

pend them, unless some limit were put by Austria to the 
advance of her troops in Servia. 

Sir Edward's wishes, therefore, were carried out 
when Sazonof altered his formula at the request of 
Sir G. Buchanan. The new formula is not printed in 
Sir Edward's Blue Book, and the impression is con- 
veyed that Austria and Germany refused to consider 
Sazonof's offer, when, as a matter of fact, the British 
diplomats themselves requested and obtained its with- 
drawal. 

Sir Edward Grey has not yet explained Buchanan's 
and his own actions in this matter, but until he explains 
it, the only possible inference is that Sir Edward Grey 
did not want Russia to make a proposal to Austria and 
Germany that they were likely to accept. In short, 
Sir Edward wanted war ! 

He wanted war, because he had prepared for it, and 
because he had begun his mobilization weeks before, 
certainly as early as the end of June. His Blue Book 
begins with July 20, but this is only a feint, as is 
proved by the following affidavit in the possession of 
the author : 

In a speech before the Boston Press Club on Sunday, 
January 14, Forbes Sutherland made the following state- 
ments : 

That for several years he had been a member of the 
British military intelligence department. 

That he landed in New York toward the end of June 
and he there found a cablegram from the home office in 
London, already three days old, telling him to report 
immediately. 

That he telephoned to his local chief in Montreal, Can- 
ada, to inquire what it was all about, and that he was 
told that it was for the European service. 

That he had returned to London and that about one 
week before the first declaration of war he had gone to 



434 Germany's Point of View 

Antwerp with one of the heads of the intelligence de- 
partment to concert measures with the head of the Bel- 
gium Secret Service. 

That he was now in this country overseeing the ship- 
ment of horses for the British army. 

This affidavit was published in the Fatherland, 
April 14, 191 5, and since Mr. Sutherland v^as then 
employed by a prominent New England paper as 
military expert, the editor of this paper complained 
of the publication, but had to confess that the affidavit 
was correct when the author offered to publish- any 
correction if it had been wrong. 

Why did Sir Edward recall Mr. Sutherland in June 
and send him to Antwerp, on his arrival In London, 
"to concert measures with the head of the Belgium 
Secret Service"? How does this square with the 
studied impression conveyed by his Blue Book that 
he had no thought of war before July 20, and took 
no active steps until days later? 

Another affidavit in the possession of the author 
reads as follows : 

In Viersen, Germany, is a very large concern which 
has over 2,000 retail stores in Germany dealing in coffee. 
The name is Kaiser's Kaffee Geschaeft. The main stock- 
holder's name, who is also the president of the com- 
pany, is Comerzienrat Joseph Kaiser. This company has 
coffee plantations in Brazil, and on July 22 the home 
office cabled a large amount of money to their Brazil 
office via London. England attached this amount and 
did not forward same to Brazil. 

Again one wonders why England should have taken 
this action on July 22, a day before the Austrian note 
was presented to Sdrvia, if Sir Edward had no inten- 
tion of bringing about an European war. Similar 
instances have been collected in large numbers and 



Sir Edward's Evidence 435 

will undoubtedly be edited soon and presented as a 
strong indictment of Sir Edward Grey. He will be 
forced to explain them — which he has refused to do 
as yet — or stand convicted either of having treacher- 
ously plotted the war, or having falsified his evidence. 
The present discussion is concerned with Sir Edward's 
published evidence and may, therefore, disregard the 
other information except in so far as it forms a back- 
ground against which the published evidence may be 
surveyed. 

The British Blue Book is remarkably silent on the 
subject of British mobilization. The first reference 
to the British fleet occurs in Number 48, July 27, 
where Sir Edward quotes his interview with the 
Austrian Ambassador as follows : 

I pointed out that our fleet was to have dispersed 
today, but we had felt unable to let it disperse. We 
should not think of calling up reserves at this moment, 
and there was no menace in what we had done about our 
fleet. 

This statement is a falsehood, for the fleet was to 
have dispersed three days earlier, but had been kept 
mobilized by Winston Churchill, First Lord of the 
Admiralty, without the knowledge or consent of the 
Cabinet.* This is today an acknowledged fact, and 

* See also letter by Admiral Lord Fisher to Sir Henry 
Lucy, published in New York Evening Sun and Milwaukee 
Free Press, April 19, 1915. *' I am in close touch with 
Winston [Churchill]. He has been splendid for three things. 
First, the appointment to the command of the fleet of Jellicoe. 
Second, mobilizing before war was declared. Third, buying 
[this is euphemistic for seizing. E. v. M.] the two Turkish 
dreadnaughts. . . . Mobilization of the fleet before the 
war upon the innocent pretext of an expected visit from the 
king, was a clever strategy that found the grand fleet oppor- 
tunely in the North Sea when, a few days later, war was 



43^ Germany's Point of View 

appears also from a despatch in the French Yellow 
Book, Number 66, which reads in part as follows : 

The attitude of Great Britain is defined by the stop- 
page of the demobilization of her fleet. The first Lord 
of the Admiralty on Friday already [that is July 24] 
discreetly took this step on his own initiative. Tonight 
Sir Edward Grey and his colleagues decided to publish 
this news. The result is due to the conciliatory attitude 
of Servia and Russia. 

The effect of this announcement, as is generally 
known, was to stiffen the military party of Russia, who 
saw in it the proof of England's intention to live up 
to the demands of her recently concluded naval agree- 
ment with Russia. The trustworthiness of Sir Ed- 
ward's evidence, however, can be gauged by the fact 
that he writes over his own name as having taken 
place on July 27 what actually took place three days 
earlier, on July 24. 

The mobilization of the British fleet could not be 
kept a secret long, and even if there had been no 
ulterior motive in publishing it, it would have had to 
be announced soon after it had taken place. It was 
not so with the mobilization of the land forces, and 
readers of the Blue Book have received the impres- 
sion that no steps had been taken in advance of the 
outbreak of hostilities. This is due to Sir Edward's 
studious omission of all references to this subject. 
The French Yellow Book is less reticent, and in 
Number 108, July 30, Paul Cambon reports what Sir 
Edward had told him of his interview with the German 
Ambassador : 

declared, with the result of bottling up the German fleet in 
the helpless condition in which it remains to this day." 

It will be remembered that Sir Edward Grey has said that 
only he prepares for war who plans war. 



Sir Edward's Evidence 437 

But my German colleague questioned the Secretary of 
State for foreign affairs as to the military preparations 
of England. Sir Edward Grey replied that they had no 
offensive character, but that in the present state of affairs 
on the continent it was natural to take some precautions. 

This interview has been suppressed in Sir Edward's 
evidence ! 

But it is needless to pursue the investigation fur- 
ther. Those who have followed it may or may not 
agree with Dr. Conybeare of Oxford that Sir Edward 
Grey is " a sinister liar who forever has peace on his 
lips and war in his heart," but they cannot deny that 
Sir Edward's evidence is tainted with falsifications 
and omissions. 

It was, however, largely on Sir Edward's evidence 
that Germany was condemned in ^this and other neu- 
tral countries. From this very evidence it now 
appears, when it is corrected and supplemented, that 
Germany and Austria, far from plotting an European 
war, were slowly but surely pushed into it by Sir 
Edward Grey. He tried to cover up his tracks, and, 
barring a few slips in his Blue Book, might have suc- 
ceeded if it had not been for the publication of the 
voluminous French Yellow Book. Taking these two 
publications together and reading them against the 
background of history, there is no doubt that the 
present war is the result of a gigantic conspiracy 
against Germany. In such a case, individual likes 
and dislikes have no place, and if justice has not 
entirely forsaken this world, the sympathy of all right- 
minded people who see the causes of the war in their 
true light must be with Germany. 



INDEX 

Alsace, Lorraine, history of, and present condition, 78-100 

America, defense of dum-dum bullets at the Hague, 48-55; 
exportation of arms, 325-327; growing sentiment for Ger- 
many, 122-125 ; hardships among its poor worse than in 
Belgium, 193, 194; partial and unreliable news, 180-185, 193; 
insistence on her rights as a neutral would render Belgium 
relief work unnecessary, 197-199, 368, 369; the Nation and 
other important papers misinformed, 129, 135, 136 ; American 
idea, 355-362; declares export of arms a cause of war, 360; 
where she will stand at close of war, 370 

Arms, export of, by U. S., 351-362 

Atrocities, 28-32, 179, 184, 185 

Austria, attitude before the war, 242-256; her dossier sup- 
pressed by Sir Edward Grey, 420-424 

Belgium, actual conditions after the conquest, 35-38, 199; 
atrocities by franc-tireurs, 31-39, 185, 187, 188; Brussels 
documents, 65, 66, 131, 135-139, 413-417; Congo atrocities, 
134, 135; distrust of England in 1913, 115-117; famine denied 
by American newspaper men, 193, 196-199; gratitude for 
German kindness, 34, 35; great possessions, 135; hostility to 
Germany in recent years, 9, 10 ; letter of Minister to Russia, 
6-8 ; Louvain, 30-38, 199, 200 ; helped by Germany, 34, 35, 126, 
188, 199; need of impartial commission, 31, 32; neutrality, 
168-174; neutrality and England, 47, 48, 101-107; neutrahty 
and France, 68, 69 ; neutrality broken by herself, 47, 48, 65-72, 
114-118, 135-139; treaties of neutrality of 1831 and 1839, 1-13, 
131-139; treaty of neutrality of 1870, 113, 132-139; illiteracy 
of, 374; "conversations" with England, 408, 412-418; defense 
vs. Brussels documents, 413-417 

Beck, James M., writings and reply to, 419, 420 

Bernhardi, limited influence of, 56, 317 

Bismarck, character and achievements, 328-337 

Blue Book, British, see Sir Edward Grey's evidence 

Bombs, asphyxiating, used by France first, 388 

Bowles, T. Gibson, 358 

Brussels, the, documents, 65, 66, 131, 135-139, 412-418 

Bryan, W. J., note to England, 365, 366 ; MacFayden interview, 

417 
Bryce, Viscount, 403 
Bulgaria, 338-350 

439 



440 Index 



Cables, why England cut the German, 273 

Carnegie endowment for international peace, comrnittee's re- 
port on the Balkan wars, 345-347 

Casement, Sir Roger, letter to Sir Edward Grey, 380-387 

Censorship of news, British, 24-27, 103, 119, 136, 137, 180-185, 
191, 192 

Choate, Joseph, betrays United States at Hague Conference, 
355, 356 

Church, Samuel H., confidence in Sir Edward Grey, 401-403 

Churchill, Winston, 113, 114 

Cleveland, President, on duties of neutrals, 359 

Concentration camps, 280, 281 

Conybeare, F. C, letter on Sir Edward Grey, 391-405, 437 

Consuls, exequaturs withdrawn from, 200, 201 

Czar of Russia, responsible for the war, 104-106, 128 

Declaration of Paris and of London, 303-327, 358, 364 
Dernburg, Dr. Bernhard, and Brussels documents, 414 
'^Der Tag," 77, 78 
Dum-dum bullets, 48-56 

Embargo, see Exportation of arms ; could have forced England 

to observe International Law, z'^y 
England, see Great Britain 
Exportation of arms, 351-362 

Firth, William, falsely accuses Germany, 2)7^ 
Fisher, Baron, on the conduct of war, 57 * 

France, Alsace-Lorraine, 78-100; dum-dum bullets, use of, 48- 
56; most valuable provinces held by Germany, 108; official 
documents (the Yellow Book), 216-268, 405, 407, 408, 420- 
437; voices against England, 101-103; wanton destruction of 
churches by the government in times of peace, 203-208; uses 
asphyxiating bombs first, 388 
Franc-tireur attacks, 32-39 
Freedom of the sea, 355, 373 

Gallivan, Congressman, advocates embargo on food, 369 

Gas bombs, used by France first, 388 

German Emperor, rights and duties of, 20-23; estimate of by 
Houston Chamberlain, 38-42; estimate of by ex-President 
Taft, 92; Germany's love for, 211-215; his practical Chris- 
tianity, 211-215; man of peace, 38-42; misquoted, 38, 129, 130; 
tried to avertvwar, 127-131 

German Chancellor von Bethmann-Holweg, 11, 12; and the 
"scrap of paper," 10-13, i73, i74 

Germany, Alsace-Lorraine, 78-100; achievements in Kiau-chau, 
59-64 ; American estimate of German sailors, 202 ; atrocities 
denied, 29-32, 179, 184, 185; as a world power, 73, 77, 317, 
318; attitude before the war in the light of the French 



Index 441 



Yellow Book, 216-268; in the light of letters by German 
scientists, 269-279; broke no treaty by invading Belgium, 
65, 66; her character as exemplified by Bismarck, 328-337; 
character of her soldiers, 140-148; character of her sailors, 
202; criticized by American travelers, 162-168, 201, 202; con- 
duct of the war, 28-42 ; conduct in Belgium, 374, 376 ; de- 
fended by American newspaper men, 186-189, 193, 196-199; 
conduct of naval war, 303-309; constitution of, 14-27; "Der 
Tag," toast explained, yy, 78; did not begin the war, loi, 
104-106; food supply, 280-302; franc-tireur attacks on sol- 
diers, 32-39; invasion of Belgium paralleled by other coun- 
tries, 175-179; odds against her, 74-76; help given to Belgium, 
34, 35, 126, 188, 199, 374; Prussia, 91-93, 14-23; "scrap of 
paper," incident, 10-13, 173, 174; self control of, 208, 209; 
victories thus far in the war, 107-111; unfairly treated, 358; 
exportation of arms, 351-362; British Order-in-Council, 363- 
368; her submarine blockade, 372; and the Brussels docu- 
ments, 412-418; forced into the war by Sir Edward Grey, 437 

Great Britain, alliance with Japan, 56-64 ;. animosity against 
Germany, 40, 57; attitude before the war, 222-231, 259-268; 
Belgium neutrality and, 103, 132-139; conduct of the war, 
43-57, 2o8r-2ii, 308-310; conduct of African War, 210, 280; 
conduct of River War, 112, 113; conduct of naval war, 303- 
314; treatment of Ireland, 149-161 ; dum-dum bullets, use of, 
48-56; expressions of neutrality in 1870, 69-71, 132-134, 197; 
invites criminals to enlist, 209; and the "law of nations," 303- 
327; London Times and Belgian neutrality, 132-139; naval 
agreement with Russia, 43-46, 404, 409 ; "naval holiday," 43 ; 
news from her unreliable, 24-27, 119, 120, 126, 127, 182, 191, 
192; plans for a Belgian campaign, 131-134, 412-418; refuses 
to ratify the Hague Conventions, 46, 68-72, 305, 307, 308, 
314, 316-327; refuses to guarantee neutrality of Belgium, 1-8; 
trying to starve women and children of Germany, 280, 281, 
363-368; violation of neutral territory and waters, 8, 65, 186; 
voices against the war, 101-106; web of calumny against 
Germany, 190-202; Order-in-Council, 363, 367; atrocities by, 
378-380; treatment of Casement, 380-387; deluded by Sir 
Edward Grey, 421-428; his evidence, 401-437; mobilization, 
435, 436; importation of wheat, 371, 372; why German cables 
were cut, 373 

Greece, treatment of Bulgaria by, 347, 348 

Grey, Sir Edward, in the light of the French "Yellow Book," 
216-268; reply to Belgian fears of an English invasion in 
1913, 114-119; what he left unsaid on August 3, 1914, 68-72; 
Conybeare's letter on, 375, 391-400; his evidence, 401-437; 
could have prevented the war, 406 

Hague Conference, conventions of neutrality, 46-48 ; discussion 
of dum-dum bullets, 48-57; points for next conference, 55; 
purpose of, of 1907, 357 



442 Index 

Holland, protests British Order-in-Council, 363, 364, 367, 371 

Illiteracy of Belgium, 374 
International law, 303-314. 354, 355 

Italy, dislike of England, 121 ; ex-Premier Giolitti's statement 
misinterpreted, 118-124; not unfriendly to Germany, 120-121 

Japan, capture of Kiau-chau, 59-64; violation of neutrality, 64 
Jefferson, Thomas, estimate of England, 366 

Kaiser's Kaffee Geschaeft, money of, held up by England, 434 

Kiau-chau, 59-64 

Kitchener, Field Marshal, 112, 113 

Law of nations, see International law — 

Louvain, not destroyed, 32, 36, 38, 187, 191, 200 
Luxemburg, and neutrality, 69-71, 131- 133 

MacFayden, D., interview with Secretary Bryan, 417 
Miller, C. R., and embargo on arms, 354, 355 
Miltronov, Prof., and Russia's ambition, 410 
Mobilization, British, 435, 436 
Morgan, J. P., commission on munitions of war, 370 

Neutrals, rights and duties of, 357, 363-377 
Nietzsche, admired by the French, 76, 77, 94, 95, 317 
Norman, C. H., pamphlet on the war, 411 

Press, the American, partial and unreliable news service, 119, 
120, 126, 127, 136, 137, 181-189, 191, 192, 203, wicked campaign 
by in England and Germany, 399 

Review of Reviews, American, on Russian militarism, 409, 410 

Rheims, the true story, 207, 208 

Roberts, Field Marshal, 58, 416 

Russia, attitude before the war, 217-241, 252-268; naval agree- 
ment with England, 43-46, 404, 409; responsible for the war, 
loi, 107, 128, 129; suspends mobilization, 429; influenced by 
England to war, 431-433 

"Scrap of paper, a," incident, 10-13, 173, 174 
Serajevo, the murder at, 105, 124, 125, 243, 424, 427 
Servia, treatment of Macedonia by, 345-347 
Sutherland, Forbes, British officer in American newspaper em- 
ploy, 433, 434 

Tipperary, the meaning of, 149- 161 
Treitschke, 94, 317 



Index 443 

■- ■ 

Viviani, M., French Premier, 408 

War, naval and international law, 303-330 

Wheat, America drained of, 371, 372 

White Paper, British, see Sir Edward Grey's evidence 

Yellow Book, French, 216-268, 405, 407, 408, 420-437 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: ^^^ 2001 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 






'-4'' 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




I nil Mill mil II I 



• 



